Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WALLERAWANG COLLERIES, LIMITED BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Employment Statistics

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment in view of the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), Official Report, 2 June, column 325, that there are signs of success in Government policies to deal with unemployment, whether he can say now when he expects unemployment substantially to decrease.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend. It is impossible to make accurate forecasts of the kind requested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that last week he stated that there was a distinct possibility that unemployment would pass the 3 million mark and that this was accepted, at least in silence, by the Prime Minister? Does he now recognise that, unless there is a change of policy, there will be a continual upward trend in unemployment?

Mr. Prior: I would not wish to go any further than what I said to the Select Committee about a month ago in relation to unemployment. It is impossible to forecast unemployment to any precise degree of accuracy. That is the position that both the Prime Minister and I have always maintained.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unemployment will decrease when the slump is over, when British firms are more competitive and when the British public buy more British goods?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. When we buy more of the goods that we make for ourselves and when we become more competitive, we can stop importing other people's unemployment and get down to work ourselves.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: So that we may better understand the trends in unemployment, will the right hon.
Gentleman review his Department's practice of quoting only local unemployment rates for travel-to-work areas and not for employment office areas within those travel-to-work areas?

Mr. Prior: Following the hon. Gentleman's speech in the House last Wednesday, I am investigating more fully what he said then. I shall write to him about it.

Trade Union Immunities

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has so far received on the Green Paper on trade union immunities.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations, corporate and individual, he has so far received on the Green Paper on trade union immunities.

Mr. Prior: So far, we have received 210 representations on the Green Paper, including 90 from individuals.

Mr. Winterton: Bearing in mind the vicious abuse of the closed shop, as exampled in Walsall and Sandwell, and the overwhelming number of representations received from business organisations urging further legislation, particularly on the closed shop, will my right hon. Friend give a firm commitment to the House this afternoon that further legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech for the next Session of Parliament so that the people of this country may be rid once and for all of the evils of the closed shop?

Mr. Prior: I agree with what my hon. Friend said about Sandwell and Walsall councils. Clearly, these and other matters covered by the consultation process on the Green Paper will be taken into account when the Government decide about future legislation. I think that it would be wrong for me in any way to prejudge the Queen's Speech, but I have noted my hon. Friend's point and the points made by many other hon. Friends.

Mr. Neubert: As the Government are opposed in principle to the closed shop as a denial of personal liberty and a protection for restricted practices, how could the present arrangements continue to be justified? Is it not more than a coincidence that, in many of the countries which are more successful internationally than we are, the closed shoo is actually illegal?

Mr. Prior: Some countries which say that they do not have closed shops in fact have them. We have had a number of closed shops in this country for many years. Particular industries and representations on the Green Paper have asked for the closed shop to be continued. We must take all these things into consideration. It is certainly not acceptable that the closed shop should continue to allow people to be dismissed as at Sandwell and Walsall, and perhaps a number of other places, where clearly the deterrent powers in the 1980 Act are not proving sufficient to deter an employer who is determined to follow that course.

Mr. Eastham: Some hon. Members may be obsessed with attacking the trade unions, but will the Secretary of State also consider lousy employers? Is he aware of he example in the city of Manchester, where Lawrence Scott


has unjustifiably attacked the workers and where there is a sit-in of 650 workers? Will the Secretary of State also look at management?

Mr. Prior: I shall not comment on an individual case. I have always made it plain that I believe that management and unions have both played a part in bad industrial relations in the past 20 years. I am doing all that I can to improve matters. It would help enormously if Opposition Members recognised that the Employment Act is moderate and reasonable. If they want to get industrial relations right, they should support it, not threaten to throw it out.

Mr. George Gardiner: As the Green Paper covered many important aspects of trade union immunity, going beyond the issue of the closed shop, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the representations that he has received under all heads will be seriously considered when he draws up the legislation that we understand is on the cards for the next Session?

Mr. Prior: All representations will be carefully considered. They vary from demands for immediate action and for action some time in the future to demands for no action at all. All these matters are extremely difficult and delicate and will be properly considered. In due course, the House will be informed of the Government's decisions.

Mr. Harold Walker: In contradiction of what the right hon. Gentleman has so often said, has not the Prime Minister encouraged the belief that there will be legislation? If the 1980 Act is moderate and sensible, why pursue further legislation, which presumably will be immoderate and insensible? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that Joanna Harris already has a statutory remedy, as has anyone else who has been unfairly dismissed, although she has not taken advantage of it? Will he repeat to the House what he has so often said: that the law in this area is unlikely to be effective unless it has the consent of those to whom it applies? Therefore, will he not legislate in defiance of the TUC?

Mr. Prior: I shall certainly consult fully before introducing any legislation. I make it plain to the House that the way in which the Sandwell and Walsall district councils have used their power to dismiss people in an intolerable manner is unsatisfactory. Changes should be made, but, as I have always said, changes in industrial relations law should be approached step-by-step, and abuses should be dealt with as they are seen to arise.

Training Initiative

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what initial response he has received to the new training initiative.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I have received a number of generally favourable responses, including several from hon. Members.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is not this the most relevant document on the subject published since the manpower crisis came upon us? Does my hon. Friend agree that he and his colleagues should take a lead in persuading employers and trade unions that only a radical initiative such as this will enable us to overcome our economic and industrial problems?

Mr. Morrison: The answer is "Yes, Sir" to both questions. The new training initiative has drawn together strands that have floated around during the past two years, which is a great advantage. I hope that the Government and industry will capitalise on it.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Under-Secretary of State concede that, if the initiative is to be successful, he must guarantee large additional sums? Will it not also require statutory underpinning of industrial training? Will he especially bear in mind that 17·7 per cent. of youngsters under 20 are unemployed?

Mr. Morrison: It is not necessarily correct that there must be a guarantee of more money. The Government are already spending £253 million on the TOPS programme and just under £50 million on supporting 25,000 apprentices and others, so they have a major commitment. However, the matter is up for debate.

Mr. Needham: Is not one underlying cause of the need for a new training initiative the ludicrously high wages that young people receive, which is a direct result of trade union collective bargaining? Should we not put a stop to that?

Mr. Morrison: The difference between the earnings of adults and young people, for example, in Germany, is far greater than in this country, and that fact could have a bearing on the matter. However, we want to make apprenticeship training more flexible, not time serving.

Mr. Foster: If the new training initiative is to have any value, do we not need to consider the funds required to underpin it? If employers are not prepared to chip in, does that not leave the bill with the Government? Will the money needed to make the initiative viable be forthcoming, particularly for vocational training for all 16 and 17-year-olds?

Mr. Morrison: As I explained, the Government are already spending a substantial amount on training. I agree that employers and trainees will also have to contribute.

West Yorkshire

Mr. Edward Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he proposes to take before the end of 1981 to increase employment in West Yorkshire.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): In West Yorkshire, as in the rest of the country, new jobs will be created by firms producing goods which people want and at a price which they are prepared to pay. Meanwhile, West Yorkshire will continue to benefit from the Government's programme of special employment measures.

Mr. Lyons: Is the Minister aware that only one job is now advertised for every 50 people unemployed in the region and that youth unemployment is set to soar? Will he consider a capital investment programme for West Yorkshire to strengthen regional infrastructure and to create jobs?

Mr. Waddington: One can see the attractions of a capital investment programme, but the money has to come from somewhere. The balance between current and capital expenditure will be one factor considered in the forthcoming annual review of expenditure. But in the short term there is no return from capital investment, and the money has to come from taxes or borrowing.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that, on the latest figures, more than 4,750 people are unemployed in Halifax and there are only 124 vacancies at the employment office? What advice does he have for those 4,750 people? Is it that they should all move to another area? If he does not agree with the Prime Minister's suggestion, what help can he provide for Halifax, as its assisted area status has been withdrawn?

Mr. Waddington: The advice that I would give is that, unless we tackle inflation and make absolutely sure that British industry emerges from the recession in competitive shape, the situation will be far worse, not better. The hon. Lady knows the emphasis that the Government place on a variety of special measures, most of which are specifically directed towards young people.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that assisted area status was given to the whole of the Bradford district. That is not true.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The people in Bradford will know whether the Minister is right or wrong. The Minister gave the answer. We must move along.

Work Experience Programme (Payment)

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to update the weekly payment of £23·50p in respect of young people participating in the work experience programme to take account of current living costs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: The Manpower Services Commission has written to me requesting additional resources for the youth opportunities programme. I am giving the request urgent consideration.

Mr. Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the present figure, which was fixed in November 1979, is updated to retain its purchasing power, it would be in excess of £29 per week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present figure has a detrimental effect, particularly in rural areas where the £4 transport claim often leads to problems? Does not the present payment dissuade people from joining the scheme?

Mr. Prior: We have no evidence to show that the £23·50 dissuades people from joining the scheme. More than 8,000 young people join the scheme each week. The Government intend the money to be treated as a training allowance rather than payment for work. We can help young people by getting them to understand that they must price themselves into, not out of, work. This scheme is an important way of trying to get a better relationship between training and adult working life. Broadly speaking, the figure that my hon. Friend quoted is correct. However, I should not want him to deduce that it would be possible to bring the amount up to that figure.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to give young people a sense of dignity in their work—even if they are on such schemes—they should receive a reasonable level of remuneration? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the needs of young Londoners on the scheme, as they are almost the only London workers to be without London weighting? Justice demands that that, at least, should be put right.

Mr. Prior: I cannot accept that. It is important to give young people the opportunity to gain a much greater degree of training. That is what counts and that is what we intend to do. Labour Members do not do any service to young people by constantly saying that they should be paid more.

Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the heavy burden of transport costs that falls on young people taking part in the youth opportunities programme? Some young people spend between £3 and £4 per week, or even more, on transport. Will my right hon. Friend consider lowering the threshold of £4, above which the taxpayer picks up the bill for transport, to the lower threshold of £2, which has been recommended by some of the MSC's area offices.

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. The £4 figure has been in operation for several years and has slightly improved its position in relation to the cost of transport. I can see no way in which I can meet the growing obligations towards young people with the resources that are available to me.

Mr. John Grant: Will the Secretary of State stop dodging the question? Will he recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried about this issue, just as employers and trade union representatives on the MSC are? Indeed, the MSC has urged him to raise the allowance. When will the right hon. Gentleman get to grips with the issue, raise the allowance and avert the mounting charge that too many people use the youth opportunities scheme as a method of cheap labour?

Mr. Prior: I am amazed that anyone should think that I have tried to dodge the question. I maintain that Labour Members do the dodging.

Greater London (Employment Statistics)

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many under 25-year-olds in Greater London are (a) currently unemployed and (b) have taken part in the youth opportunities programme and other special measures.

Mr. Peter Morrison: At 9 April, the number of people under 25 years of age registered as unemployed in Greater London was 91,652. In 1980–81, 10,600 young people in Greater London participated in the youth opportunities programme and a further 1,400 young people under 25 benefited from other special measures.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that there may well be 140,000 to 150,000 young people unemployed in London? What will he do about that? Does he intend only to refer to programmes that the Prime Minister—when she was Leader of the Opposition—used scathingly to call "non-jobs"? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if such opportunities are treated as "non-jobs", there are about 110,000 unemployed young people in London?

Mr. Morrison: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. I cannot anticipate the level of unemployment among young people in London or in any other pall of the country. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman appears to sneer at the youth opportunities programme.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Civil and Public Services Association is still vetoing the creation of YOP job experience places in Government offices? Is that not a callous attitude by a union that has


largely been insulated from the unemployment and redundancies of the private sector? Will the Government act unilaterally and trust in the good sense and generosity of the overwhelming majority of rank and file civil servants?

Mr. Morrison: We very much regret that some Civil Service unions are not convinced of the value of the youth opportunities programme, despite the TUC's wholehearted support.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the figures that he read out are extremely important in relation to the problems that Lord Scarman is trying to defuse in Brixton?

Mr. Morrison: Any figure showing the number of unemployed young people is extremely important. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put all his weight behind the youth opportunities programme.

"Camden Journal" and "Hornsey Journal"

Mr. Race: asked the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 22 May, Official Report, c. 190, what assistance officials of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service have given in seeking a resolution of the dispute at the Camden Journal and Hornsey Journal newspapers.

Mr. Waddington: I understand that after meeting with officials of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the parties have agreed to go into arbitration with a single arbitrator.

Mr. Race: Will the Minister convey the thanks of the House to ACAS for the work that it has done in seeking a solution to the dispute? Through his good offices, will he make it clear to ACAS that any long-lasting solution to the dispute must centre on the redeployment and non-victimisation of any journalists involved in the dispute in the past few months?

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the assistance given by ACAS. It would not be right for me to comment on the issue between the parties. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the independence of ACAS, as guaranteed in schedule 1 of the 1975 Act.

Mr. Squire: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise how seriously we would view anything that reduced the British public's ability to read about the activities of Camden council?

Mr. Waddington: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend. I said that I would not comment on the issue between the parties. However, having read the Socialist Worker, I am in no doubt that some unsavoury people have been trying to get in on the act.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that the summary closure of those newspapers sprang from the fact that the management objected to a reasonably objective portrayal of the activities of the Haringey and Camden councils? That shows how much the Conservative Party is concerned about the freedom of the press.

Mr. Waddington: That is an example of someone trying to get in on the act. I am leaving it to the parties involved to get on with arbitration.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept—as one who has been a reader of the Hornsey Journal for many years—that many members of that paper's staff feel most aggrieved by the attitude expressed by some of those working on the Camden Journal? Earlier, the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) suggested that there should be no victimisation. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that there is no victimisation of those who resigned from the NUJ because of their concern and upset about the union's policies?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me, but I must decline to be tempted.

Further Education

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Manpower Services Commission has now concluded its consultations with the Department of Education on the subject of providing similar advantages to young people staying in further education as those young people involved in the youth opportunities programme.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Consultations between the Manpower Services Commission and the education service have sought to improve co-operation rather than to standardise provision and are continuing to that end.

Mr. Lewis: I understand that those consultations have been going on for some time. Is my hon. Friend aware that in a few years there will be many places available in colleges of further education and polytechnics? Would it not be sensible to fit young people who wish to opt for further education rather than for job opportunities into those colleges and polytechnics? Instead of cutting back, we could kill two birds with one stone.

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that consultations have been going on, and it is right that they should continue. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that in 1981–82 just over 45,000 young people are expected to enter the work preparation courses run by the education service.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Minister agree that in regions, such as the Northern region, which are already extremely deprived in terms of employment opportunities for youngsters there is a strong case for examining the possibility of encouraging youngsters to stay on at school by making finance available for them to do so? Would it not be wise, in the same context, for his right hon. Friend to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has gone in for the nonsensical idea of depriving young people of unemployment benefit to force them to leave school at Easter rather than to take examinations?

Mr. Morrison: I am, of course, aware that regions, such as the Northern region, have greater problems than other parts of the country. I accept that the problems should be examined and solved in terms of asking the young people concerned to stay on at school or to take training courses at colleges of further education.

Mr. Madel: As there is to be a greater training content in the youth opportunities programme, will my hon. Friend encourage the Manpower Services Commission to look to local education authorities for help in supplying qualified instructors on these courses?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend underlines the importance of a strong link between the education service, local education authorities and the Manpower Services Commission in respect of the youth opportunities programme, particularly as the training part of the programme increases.

Mr. Hooky: Does the Minister agree that it would be absurd to have a financial disincentive to boys and girls who wish to pursue sensible further training in the further education system by reason of the complex arrangements and the variety of schemes that exist for the 16 to 19-yearolds?

Mr. Morrison: As my right hon. Friend has already stated, there is a greater emphasis on training. The hon. Gentleman referred to a financial disincentive. We have to consider whether such a disincentive exists. I do not believe that it does.

Employment Statistics

Mr. loan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were unemployed in May 1979 and at the latest available date.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment.

Mr. Prior: At 10 May 1979, the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, was 1,312,000, The corresponding figure, which is provisional, was 2,552,400 at 11 June 1981. The non-seasonally adjusted figure, which includes school leavers, was 2,680,977.

Mr. Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the fraudulent political poster used in the last general election when Saatchi and Saatchi organised a bogus unemployment queue with the words underneath, "Labour is not working". Is Conservatism working now? What message has the right hon. Gentleman for the thousands of people who will be demonstrating in Cardiff on Saturday against the Government's employment policies?

Mr. Prior: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recalls the slogan, "Back to work with Labour" in 1974 after which the Labour Government doubled the level of unemployment in two years. I hope that he also recalls the report in The Observer in 1976 prophesying, through a Labour Party committee, a figure of 2·5 million unemployed in 1980.

Mr. Whitney: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, while there has been some welcome improvement in productivity, the real cause of unemployment is directly related to the fact that output per head in Britain over the last years has been only two-thirds that of our industrial competitors?

Mr. Prior: A number of factors contribute to the high level of unemployment. Some are within the control of this country. Some are not. In those areas where the Government can help with special employment measures and in other respects, we shall do all that we can to relieve this serious situation.

Mrs. Renee Short: Is the Secretary of State aware that male unemployment in Wolverhampton in 1979 was 6·2 per cent. and is now 17·1 per cent? Is he also aware that

women's unemployment, which was 4·6 per cent., is now 9·6 per cent? When will he produce some policy to reduce this level of unemployment in the West Midlands? When will some resources be invested in creating new industries to replace the old industries that have disappeared?

Mr. Prior: The West Midlands is suffering very heavily from high unemployment. It is a reflection of the downturn in the motor industry and in car components and other industries associated with engineering. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady will know as well as I do that we are producing about 700,000 fewer cars a year than we were producing 20 years ago. [Interruption.] This is reflected in the level of unemployment in areas such as Wolverhampton. It comes back to the question of our becoming competitive in costs so that we produce goods that people wish to buy.

Mr. Adley: I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend was referring specifically to British Leyland. I was unable to hear the first part of his answer. Does not the fact that British Leyland has produced 30,000 more cars with a smaller work force illustrate, in a nutshell, the problem of unmodernised British industry, which has suffered from bad industrial relations and low productivity? Will he not agree that, unless and until we deal with the problems, we shall never get the economy right and that in dealing with them there will inevitably be unemployment in the short term? We have to go through the pain of unemployment to get the economy right.

Mr. Prior: There are some welcome signs of increasing productivity and good sense on the shop floor. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North-East (Mrs. Short) asks what else we can do. We have allocated, in the space of two years, £930 million to British Leyland, which will have an enormous effect in helping the West Midlands. I believe that this is the right policy, although it is an expensive one from the point of view of the rest of the country.

Mr. Varley: Why has the Secretary of State given up the fight to reduce unemployment? Is it not pathetic nowadays that, when he appears in the House or on the radio or television, he speculates about when, within the next few months, unemployment will reach 3 million? When will he fight within the Cabinet for economic policies to reduce unemployment, fulfil the terms of his office and give hope to the unemployed in Britain?

Mr. Prior: I am a member of a Government who are putting over £1,000 million into employment measures that have helped cases such as British Leyland and other nationalised industries with vast sums of money. It takes some time to clear up the mess for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible.

Mr. loan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the greatly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Job Creation

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Employment, in view of current forecasts that unemployment will continue at or above present levels, what new schemes he intends to introduce to assist job creation.

Mr. Waddington: We have expanded special employment measures significantly and plan to spend


almost £1 billion in 1981–82. We are keeping the measures under review and shall be considering later in the year what our programme for next year should be.

Sir David Price: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the whole House shares the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that the present level of unemployment is completely unacceptable? Is he aware that the House will accept any measures that he and his Department bring forward to reduce it?

Mr. Waddington: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his remarks. One has to remember the experience of the previous Labour Government who poured a vast sum of money into the economy between 1977 and 1979 and succeeded only in reducing unemployment by 150,000. If that does not show how difficult are these problems, nothing will. We shall not go to the people and pretend that there is any easy solution or panacea.

Mr. Cryer: As the Government have increased unemployment in my constituency by 183 per cent. and as many hundreds of people depend on the temporary short-time working scheme, does not the Minister realise that, if the scheme finishes, there will be getting on for another 1 million people on the dole? His hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) says that the House will support any schemes to reduce the level of unemployment. Has his Department any ideas for schemes to replace the temporary short-time working scheme to get people off the dole? Or is the truth that the Government do not care and that they are being hypocritical?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman represents a part of the country which, like every other part of the country, will benefit if British industry emerges from this recession in good and competitive shape. His part of the country will suffer as much as any part of the country if we allow inflation to run riot again as happened under the previous Government, which he supported.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way to help the unemployed is to allow them to price themselves into work? Will not the Government now consider freeing 10 per cent. of the economy by abolishing the wages councils, which have the effect of preventing the weakest sections of the community from applying for jobs at rates that employers can pay?

Mr. Waddington: The wages council system is but one example of the damage that has been done as a result of the narrowing of differentials between the wages of young people and adults. I remain to be convinced whether the wages councils have been setting the trend with their awards or following it. It may well be the latter.

Mr. John Grant: Will the Minister reconsider that reply? Is it necessary to make an unwarranted and disgraceful attack on the concept of the wages council system that bears no resemblance to the facts? Before he makes that sort of assertion should he not hold a full-scale inquiry?

Mr. Waddington: I fear that the hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. I said that if one considers the awards made by wages councils one can see that over the years there has been a narrowing of the differentials between the wage paid to young people and the wage paid to adults. That has happened in the economy as a whole, I was therefore not entirely agreeing with my

hon. Friend. My hon. Friend seemed to be suggesting that the wages council system was unique in making that mistake.

Preston

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in the Preston travel-to-work area.

Mr. Waddington: At 11 June, the provisional unemployment rate in the Preston travel-to-work area was 11·4 per cent.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that figure would be intolerable, were it to last for any length of time? Does he further agree with me—with his special knowledge of the Preston area as a local man—that Preston will be well placed when the recession ends to gain great advantage from its geographical location, its communications and the general structure of its industry, especially with successful industries such as British Aerospace?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is quite correct. Preston is splendidly placed, with its good communications. It has an excellent work force. It is a natural growth point and will be one of the first places to benefit from our anti-inflationary policies and our policies to restore the competitiveness of British industry.

Employment Statistics

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage increase in unemployment in men and women over the last three years.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Between June 1978 and June 1981 the numbers of males and females registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom increased by 87·5 per cent. and 80·3 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that in the light of those appalling increases our people can no longer believe that the Government are not utterly bereft of new ideas? Does he realise that in my constituency unemployment has been raised by the Government from 3·8 per cent. to 12·6 per cent.? Is he aware that that is appalling and is mostly among young, skilled people in a highly productive area of Britain? Does he realise that the growth of criminality, the growth of the British Movement and the increase in general social disorder that go with unemployment will be on his and the Government's conscience?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that the Government have reacted by enormously increasing the amount of money that they are prepared to put into special measures. This year, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, it is almost £1 billion. I am also aware that last year over 6 million people found jobs, but that is not the story that one hears from the Opposition.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the large sum that the Government have devoted to the special measures described earlier by my hon. Friend. However, does he not agree that it would be better to put public money into selective constructive capital projects to give both young and old meaningful long-term employment? Is he aware


that much of that money would come back into the private sector, thus benefiting the sector that has been penalised to date?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Department of Industry invests money in the way that he requires. The Department of Employment also is spending more money than before on special measures, as I pointed out.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware, that unemployment in the Warrington travel-to-work area has gone from 5·2 per cent. in 1979 to 12·8 per cent now? What message will he give to the people of Warrington about why they should vote Tory in the forthcoming by-election?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that unemployment in the Warrington area has increased, as the hon. Gentleman said. I am also aware that the amount of money going into the Warrington area in terms of special measures has also increased substantially. I have noticed that, despite the great Liberal and Social Democratic alliance, no Liberal Member has been present for unemployment questions today. I wonder whether that point will be noted in Warrington.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Chapman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is taking part in the meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg.

Mr. Chapman: When my right hon. Friend is next in telephonic communication with the Prime Minister, will he ask her to consult the Home Secretary and other Ministers to ensure the closest co-ordination of policies as they affect London, bearing in mind the unique features and special problems of the Metropolis? As one such problem is the recently elected Labour GLC and the impending massive supplementary rate to be levied on the hard-pressed ratepayer, if he cannot abolish the GLC, will he and the Government redouble their efforts to get rid of the increasingly iniquitous impost that we call the rating system?

Mr. Whitelaw: On my hon. Friend's first point, in my capacity as Home Secretary I am well aware of the responsibilities that I have in London, and those that other Ministers have. I believe that the policies are well coordinated. Secondly, there is perhaps still a chance that the newly elected Labour GLC will realise the damage that it will cause to London and to employment prospects in London if it continues with the spendthrift plans that it appears to have. Thirdly, my hon. Friend will know that we are publishing a Green Paper on the rating system in the autumn.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Home Secretary tell the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State for Scotland has engineered an unprecedented confrontation between himself and the local authorities in Scotland? Is he aware that the Lothian region, including the city of Edinburgh,

has been at a complete standstill today? Can we have a new Secretary of State for Scotland before this summer of discontent goes any further?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would prefer a new council for the Lothian region, which would be far better.

Sir Bernard Braine: Can my right hon. Friend say, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government, whether he has taken a decision to return the remains of General Sikorski to Poland? If not, will he bear in mind that the wartime Polish Government decided that the remains should stay here until Poland was truly free and independent? Would it not be wrong to take such a step without consultation with those surviving comrades-in-arms of General Sikorski who live in large numbers in this country?

Mr. Whitelaw: The decision about exhumation of remains is a matter personally for me as Home Secretary. I have taken a decision. I am announcing it today. I am not prepared to allow the remains of General Sikorski to go back to Poland at this time.

Mr. Foot: As this is the first opportunity that we have had to raise the matter since a reply was given in a written answer at the end of last week, may I ask the Home Secretary about the proposed cuts in the BBC external services? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that there has been a protest against that from both sides of the House and many parts of the country? Does he not: agree that the question should be taken back to the Cabinet—as it is alleged that the right hon. Gentleman may be one of those who might have a civilising influence—that the Cabinet should reconsider the question, restore the BBC services and allow the BBC to get on with its job?

Mr. Whitelaw: We have said that under the scheme, including capital investment, we intend to offer to spend more money in real terms. It is better to have 33 audible services than 40 services, some of which are inaudible.

Mr. Foot: That is an excuse. Of course the services should be made audible, but they should be sustained in all the countries. Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that the Cabinet will reconsider the matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have made it clear that we are spending more money in real terms. I think that that is a sensible proposal.

Mr. Heddle: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I have just given.

Mr. Heddle: Now that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, has announced an independent inquiry into Civil Service pay, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now no excuse for the disruption not ceasing forthwith? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the disruption is causing widespread resentment, and discomfort to business men, pensioners and holidaymakers throughout the country? Will he urge people who are not in post to return to work forthwith?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is clear that one of the main considerations of civil servants has been the future determination of their pay. The inquiry that has been announced meets that point. Many civil servants have


stayed loyally at their posts throughout the troubles. I hope that those who are on strike will decide to join them and give up the industrial action.

Mr. Race: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the newspaper reports to the effect that the National Health Service faces a £5 million impost because of the public holiday for the Royal Wedding? Does he agree that if the National Health Service has to pay additional overtime rates, plus payments for workers on a 24-hour service that day, the money should come from the Contingency Reserve rather than from the cash already allocated to the NHS?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have not noticed that report. I believe that there is a widespread feeling in the country that a public holiday on the day of the Royal wedding is right and welcome.

Sir Frederick Burden: In view of the great importance and serious implications of the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence last week, will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that both 7 and 8 July are set aside for a debate on defence? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one day is inadequate for the House to express its views in full?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand my hon. Friend's special feelings about this subject. After all the years that he has represented Gillingham, it is a matter of great concern to him However, time for a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Miss Boothroyd: Will the Home Secretary inform the Prime Minister that her insistence at the European summit that strict monetary controls are the only method of controlling unemployment is unacceptable to the majority of our member partners in the EEC, who seem to believe that, although inflation must be tackled, it cannot be tackled in isolation from other economic policies?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, with Britain taking the Presidency of the EEC, initiatives will be taken to press the Commission to identify growth areas, to invest in those growth areas and to move towards gradual reflation, which is the only way to bring down unemployment throughout the Community?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Lady and I share one disadvantage—neither of us was present at the discussions. It would be better to address that question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There will be such an opportunity when she returns.

Mr. Newens: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave earlier.

Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the need for full-time employees in industry to be given adequate time off to pursue public duties, whether they are active shop stewards or bus drivers fighting hopeless causes in parliamentary by-elections? Will he examine the case of Mr. Mike Cooley, one of the authors of the corporate plan, who is employed by the Lucas aerospace organisation and who is faced with dismissal from his proper work as an engineer because of the public work that he has been doing. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is undesirable? Will he take the opportunity of

saying how important it is that people who are employed fulltime in industry should be allowed time off to do other things?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall look into the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions and ensure that it is properly examined. On the wider point, of course I agree with what he says. I am looking forward to going to Warrington, where I shall make an excellent speech and greatly enhance the chances of the Conservative candidate.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to refuse the request of Poland's Communist Government for the return of General Sikorski's ashes, when two Soviet divisions remain in occupation in that country and another dozen or more stand poised to invade round its borders, is most warmly welcomed by the tens of thousands of Poles in Britain and by the Polish ex-combatant's association? May I thank him warmly for that decision?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The decision was an extremely difficult one. Obviously, I believe that I took the right decision, but I do not wish to comment on the circumstances involved.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in developed nations, such as Germany, France, United States, Japan and others, the production rate is far superior to ours because their Governments, banks, managements and employees co-ordinate more than ours? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Prime Minister when she returns that it is time that she started initiating co-operation between those factions instead of at all times fighting the trade union movement?

Mr. Whitelaw: As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is urging that we in Britain should be more productive and more competitive. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been urging that for a long time.

Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend undertake that, if the Chatham dockyard really is to be closed, special facilities will be made available for smaller, private firms to undertake fresh work, using the skills of the engineering industry, which employs many of my constituents and many in the two neighbouring constituencies, which are perturbed about the rundown? May we have an assurance that something positive will be done?

Mr. Foulkes: Stop whingeing.

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. He is one of the leading Conservative Members in Kent. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends his comments, which I regard as important.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in any free collective bargaining system a disagreement goes to arbitration? As he is an advocate of the former, will he not accept the latter in the Civil Service dispute?

Mr. Whitelaw: The Government's position on the Civil Service dispute was clearly set out by the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, yesterday. I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if those in work press for wage increases in double figures in the forthcoming wage round, without compensating increases in productivity, the number of unemployed can only increase?

Mr. Whitelaw;: That must be right and I hope that many people will pay attention to it.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Home Secretary tell us in confidence, while the Prime Minister is away, what policy his Government would undertake to reduce the appalling level of unemployment if his wing of the Cabinet had its way?

Mr. Whitelaw: They would be exactly the same measures as the whole Cabinet is taking at present. I am surprised that either the hon. Gentleman, or anyone else on the Opposition Benches, should raise that matter today. They had their opportunity last Wednesday. The Leader of the Opposition had his opportunity. He muffed it. I have learnt in politics and life that it is unwise to reinforce weakness. That is what the hon. Gentleman is doing.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister today to consider the deplorable misrepresentation of our policies regarding Ulster in America, culminating in the deplorable cancellation of the visit of a member of the Royal family? Will he ensure that everything possible is done by the Government to see that the truth is known to our great ally?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is very important, and the Government will do their best to ensure that that is done.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your guidance on a matter which arose yesterday but which is also connected with the laying of a statutory instrument today. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (M. Dormand) asked the Minister of State, Department of Trade, about the workings of the Films Act 1980, and specifically about the quota for British films. The Minister for Consumer Affairs replied:
I hope to be making an announcement on quotas before long.

I took up the question, and the right hon. Lady said:
I have already told the House that I expect to make an announcement about the quota shortly".—[Official Report, 29 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 563–4.]
Standing Order No. 120 requires that, if an Act specifies that powers should be carried out by an instrument, the instrument should be laid before the House. When questions are asked in Parliament of a Minister and that Minister has made an order, preparatory to the laying, about that very subject, namely, the quota of British films, there is an obligation on the Minister to provide that information. The Minister said that she would make an announcement, but the previous Thursday she had made an order reducing the quota from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent., and that order is laid before the House today.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker—I am sure that Erskine May has guidance for us—on this matter. When a specific question is asked about a subject, the Minister should make clear the position when an order is to be laid before the House is involved.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). He will not be surprised if I say that his point of order is too important for me to answer off the cuff. I shall answer it tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)(c) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), the second part of the 24th allotted day may be proceeded with on Friday.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Protection of Parliamentary Integrity

Mr. Allen Adams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit Members of Parliament from holding any paid office or post whilst they are sitting Members of the House of Commons, other than the post to which they were elected.
I am deeply touched by the support that I have had for my proposed Bill from solicitors, barristers, Lloyd's underwriters, accountants and company directors who have made it clear to me that they are perfectly prepared to make all sorts of sacrifices for the unemployed. The Bill is essentially about unemployment and the unemployed. It is a plea to Members of Parliament not only to speak for the unemployed, but, to use the commonly used phrase, to put their money where their mouth is.
It is appropriate at this time to talk about unemployment and about people's jobs. Only last week it was announced by the Scottish Office that 305,000 people in Scotland are unemployed. In my constituency, the figures clearly show that unemployment is now running at 16 per cent. For the benefit of Conservative Members, I shall convert that into simple figures and say that one in six people in Paisley, Renfrew and West Glasgow are now without a job. Those figures will echo down the corridors of time and stand out boldly as an epitaph on the Government's tombstone. Yet with all the misery, squalor and deprivation that those figures imply, right hon. and hon. Members not only are not without a job, but have one, two, three, four and, in some cases, even six jobs.
As you have said, Mr. Speaker—and I recollect your words—it is a well-known fact that there are no hypocrites in the House. I wonder whether the people outside this place realise that—I am speaking of the people who missed your remarks, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the man in Paisley, Dundee, Kilmarnock or Glasgow who has been on the dole for two or three years and who has four or five children thinks that way, or whether he believes that there is a great deal of hypocrisy in someone here talking about unemployment and its deprivations and crying crocodile tears. He says to himself "It is all very well for those people. Not only are they Members of Parliament, but they have two or three other jobs as well, probably bringing in £70,000 or £80,000 a year".
What good does that do for Parliament, or for the credibility of Parliament? When we tell people that we care, let us prove that we care by saying that we will relinquish all outside interests, save the money that we get from the position to which we were elected. If we were prepared to do that, the standing of this House in the eyes of ordinary people would be immeasurably and immediately enhanced.
The title of the Bill demonstrates what I seek to achieve. I am seeking to protect the integrity of the House, which is greatly diminished—as I shall repeat again and again—by the fact that people weep crocodile tears over the plight of 3 million people while having three or four jobs that bring in substantial sums of money. I could go on to say—quite apart from the financial remuneration—that if we did our job properly as Members

of Parliament and looked after our constituents adequately, there would be no time to go to Lloyd's, the Bank of England, or anywhere else: we should be here.
The Bill demands that Members of Parliament treat their occupation as a full-time job. That is the kernel of the Bill. There are two basic arguments in support of the Bill. First, it would bring to the House something that I suspect is missing—an element of professionalism. Far too many right hon. and hon. Members treat the House as a hobby, a place to go to when the law courts close at 4 o'clock. The public are not as stupid and unaware as we think. That attitude demeans the whole standing of the House, and it is something that the House should rectify immediately.
Of course, I do not expect Conservative Members to support me. The present system was instituted and supported by Tories, and it is manned by Tories for the perpetuation of Tory and capitalist policies. Therefore, I expect Conservative Members to vote against the Bill. In the main, I am addressing my remarks not to Conservative Members, but to this side of the House. After all, the Labour Party has been in existence for 75 years. In that time, we have been in Government for 20 years. Yet a party that is constitutionally and spiritually committed to secure the best possible means of administration has done nothing to prevent its own members from earning cash from outside jobs, and it is high time that it did. To do otherwise would not be consistent with our aims and purposes. Containing and rolling back the Friedmanite plague which has recently descended upon us can only be consistent with securing a comprehensive Socialist strategy. The fullest involvement of Members of Parliament in the Chamber demands their exclusive and perpetual attention. It demands constant monitoring to oversee its practical implications.
The Bill is one factor; there are many others. It is part of a major review that is taking place inside people's minds in the parliamentary Labour Party, and also in the minds of people in the country. They want Members of Parliament to be fully committed. I shall not name names or pick out any special groups—except one. Let people search their own consciences and souls. There is a group of people in the House who were elected as Labour Members of Parliament. For their own reasons, they decided that it was not appropriate to remain within the Labour Party. They hailed themselves as the vanguard of the working class. They said that they were the new representatives of the working people. I am sure it is no mystery to you, Mr. Speaker, about whom I am speaking. I am referring to the so-called Social Democratic Party—the so-called representative of ordinary people. I wish to quote a wee catalogue of its interests—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will make his wee catalogue a very wee catalogue, because time is running out.

Mr. Adams: I have great respect for you, Mr. Speaker, so I shall do as you ask. I am not pillorying any particular group; I merely cite an example. Members of the Social Democratic Party have among them eight directorships, the ownership of one company, two consultancies and sponsorships in a number of legal practices. All the parties


in the House are in a similar situation. That is no longer acceptable to the people of Britain. The House should seek to change it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 155.

Division No. 235]
[3.43 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Allaun, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Ashton, Joe
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
McTaggart, Robert


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Marks, Kenneth


Buchan, Norman
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; p)
Meacher, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Canavan, Dennis
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Carmichael, Neil
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Morton, George


Cryer, Bob
Park, George


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Prescott, John


Dempsey, James
Race, Reg


Dixon, Donald
Radice, Giles


Dubs, Alfred
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Eadie, Alex
Sheerman, Barry


Eastham, Ken
Short, Mrs Renée


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Soley, Clive


Evans, John (Newton)
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Spriggs, Leslie


Forrester, John
Stoddart, David


Foster, Derek
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Foulkes, George
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Graham, Ted
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Winnick, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Woodall, Alec


Haynes, Frank
Woolmer, Kenneth


Homewood, William
Wright, Sheila


Hooley, Frank
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Ernie Ross and


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. William McKelvey.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard


Aitken, Jonathan
Brinton, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Hon Peter


Ancram, Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Buck, Antony


Banks, Robert
Budgen, Nick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Chapman, Sydney


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Blackburn, John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Body, Richard
Clegg, Sir Walter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cockeram, Eric


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Colvin, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Cope, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[24th ALLOTTED DAY] [first part]—considered

Orders of the Day — Secretary of State for the Environment

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the conduct of the Secretary of State for the Environment towards this House of Commons, the latest example being his failure to honour an undertaking to the House in respect of the compulsory transfer of Greater London Council dwellings.
The motion arises from the decision announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment to transfer compulsorily the ownership of 53,428 houses from the Greater London Council to the London boroughs of Brent, Camden, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, Lambeth, Lewisham and Waltham Forest. Every one of the nine parties—the Greater London Council and the eight boroughs alike—is opposed to the order. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State should persist in a massive property transfer to which the donor and the recipients are equally opposed. His insistence on proceeding with it is in itself a serious matter. However, that is an issue that could have been dealt with by the conventional procedure of the Opposition praying against the transfer order.
It is the manner of the transfer and the manner in which the Secretary of State has chosen to conduct himself toward the House of Commons in regard to it that have led us to table this censure motion on the Secretary of State. We censure not only the high-handed and ill-advised act of policy but the misleading manner in which he has behaved towards the House. He made a commitment to the House which he has wilfully disregarded in a manner that brings him and his office into disrepute.
When the right hon. Gentleman informed the House on 31 March of his decision to compel the transfer of these houses, he was questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), among others. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to my hon. Friend for the untiring manner in which he has persisted in pursuing this matter on behalf of his constituents and Londoners generally. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked by my hon. Friend about the attitude to the proposed transaction of Sir Horace Cutler, who at the time was the leader of the GLC, he replied:
I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. If Sir Horace should ask me to withdraw this compulsory order, I should, of course, be prepared to do so."—[Official Report, 31 March 1981; Vol. 2, c. 157.]
The Secretary of State cannot possibly have meant that it was in response to the wish of Sir Horace as an individual that he was willing to withdraw the order. To decide the future of £1 billion worth of public assets according to the whim of one person would have been frivolous and irresponsible even by the right hon. Gentleman's idiosyncratic standards. He must have intended that answer to refer to a decision by the GLC. Indeed, there is good evidence for that. However, the right

hon. Gentleman has taken up three different positions towards the solemn commitment of the House that he has now betrayed.
The right hon. Gentleman's first line of defence was offered when my hon. Friend and I asked him to withdraw the order in accordance with his pledge. He said at a meeting in his room in the House that the statement was being wrenched out of context. He claimed that it had been an off-the-cuff response to the question put by my hon. Friend, which the right hon. Gentleman complained had hurt his feelings. That was a pretty thin explanation. It was contradicted by a letter sent on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf by Mr. G. W. Moseley, second permanent secretary at the Department of the Environment, to Sir James Swaffield, director-general and clerk to the GLC, on 18 May. The letter stated:
In view of your correspondence with the Department at that time about the terms of transfer, when announcing his decision to the House on March 31, the Secretary of State thought it right to remind your Council that it could still withdraw its request under section 23, subsection (3) before he made the order.
The pledge was not an extempore remark made to an individual questioner but a carefully thought-out offer to the council. But the council never had a chance to consider this offer, since the order was not made until 2 April and was not capable of being withdrawn until after that date. The Greater London Council, under Conservative control, never met to consider it, although it had briefly considered the matter before the order was made and before it had had an opportunity to study the text of the Secretary of State's remarks.
We now have a third version of what the Secretary of State intended. Last week, following the announcement that this debate was to take place, journalists began to make inquiries about its subject—
conduct of the Secretary of State for the Environment
They were understandably perplexed as to which of the Secretary of State's multifarious wrongdoings was being singled out for censure.
The most assiduous investigator was Mr. George Clark, political correspondent of The Times. Last Friday he reported remarks of mine on the record and then proceeded to quote the views of certain unnamed Conservatives. Mr. Clark is a journalist of high integrity who would not attribute views for which he did not have good evidence, and it is clear that he had been provided with authoritative guidance. I quote from his report in The Times:
Conservatives said last night that…When Mr. Heseltine referred to Sir Horace Cutler and said he would be willing to respect his wishes, it was in the definite knowledge that Sir Horace would never make a request for the Order to be withdrawn.
If that is true, it is absolutely outrageous, for it means that the Secretary of State made a commitment to the House which he knew at the time that he made it to be utterly meaningless. To have done that is to have treated the House with the utmost contempt. When he speaks in the debate, the Secretary of State must give us an explanation. If he did not mean this pledge, why did he make it? If he meant it, why did he not honour it?
When he made his announcement on 31 March, the Secretary of State claimed that he was fulfilling the recommendations of the Herbert Royal Commission in 1960. But that Royal Commission did not recommend the transfer of properties by compulsion. The Cullingworth inquiry, set up in 1970, positively rejected compulsion. It said:


any suggestion that reluctant boroughs should be compelled to take over GLC housing cannot be countenanced.
Nine orders have been made under section 23 of the London Government Act 1963. All the others have been agreed between the boroughs and the Greater London Council. This is the first to use coercion. Let me make it perfectly clear that, if the Secretary of State persists with this order, these law-abiding local authorities will all comply with it.
When he made his statement, the Secretary of State insisted that this was the policy of the then Conservative-controlled GLC and that the council under Conservative control was entitled to see that policy brought to a satisfactory conclusion. It is a curious approach to his duties, as a senior Minister of the Crown, that the Secretary of State should regard it as his responsibility to ensure the fulfilment of election pledges by a particular majority on a particular local authority. In any case, the Tory GLC election manifesto for 1977, which it has been my grim duty to read, makes no mention of compulsory transfer, and a resolution carried by the GLC in 1970, when the Conservatives were last in power at County Hall, specifically resolved that
the council will later submit further proposals for transfers to be agreed with the London Borough Councils.
The chairman of the Greater London Council housing committee at that time was one Sir Horace Cutler, to whom the Secretary of State three months ago did or did not make a solemn pledge, as the case may be. But we know that the terms of the transfer order were and remained unacceptable to the Tory-controlled GLC, and presumably to Sir Horace Cutler, right up to 7 May, when the Conservatives lost control. We know it because Sir James Swaffield, director-general of the GLC, acting on behalf of Sir Horace Cutler, told the Secretary of State so. He wrote to the Department of the Environment on 24 February. I quote two passages from his letter of that date:
The Council"—
the Conservative-controlled council—
therefore requests that the draft order should be amended to contain an assurance that the Government will guarantee the availability of capital authorisations in future years at levels that are fully sufficient to enable the Council to fulfil its formal obligations under the Order.
The Council therefore requests that the draft order should be amended to contain an assurance that any increase in the Council's revenue expenditure caused by the terms of the order…shall not lead to penalties with regard to grant related expenditure.
Unless the two amendments requested can be included, the order as at present drafted does not place the Council in a financial position to accept the terms.
Those were the amendments requested of the Government by the Conservative-controlled GLC. Neither was made. Sir James therefore wrote again on 10 March, once more asking for those amendments to be made. Once more he was rebuffed. The position, right up to the end of Conservative control of the GLC, was summed up in an internal GLC note dated 3 June written by Mr. N. F. Stonefrost, comptroller of finance of the GLC. He said:
It needs to be added that, much as the last Council desired the transfer of the housing stock, it did not formally support any terms of the order because of the principles involved in the two financial factors considered in this brief.
Mr. Stonefrost is, of course, a public official of great distinction. I met him in his office at County Hall yesterday, when he authorised me to quote his documents and confirmed that as being the position.
Therefore, the terms of the order were unacceptable to the Conservative-controlled GLC. Its failure to ask for

their withdrawal was an act of crude partisanship and a final wanton betrayal of the electorate with whose finances it was entrusted.
When Labour won control of the Greater London Council, it immediately asked for the withdrawal of the order. This means that the opening words of the order—
Whereas the Greater London Council has requested the Secretary of State for the Environment to provide by an order under section 23 of the London Government Act 1963"—
now stand as a lurid falsehood. Certain assurances were offered in a letter from the Department of the Environment dated 11 June, but the assurance on rate support grant—
on GRE assessment, the Department will shortly put to the Grants Working Group a paper on the manner in which the GLC's responsibilities for transferred stock shall be brought into account"—
has been dismissed by one knowledgeable official as "not worth a penny". On capital allocations, the assurance read:
so far as is consistent with the national constraints on available resources, the Secretary of State expects to ensure that your authority has sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities arising from both compulsory and voluntary transfers.
Not only is that alleged assurance dependent on unquantified restraints, not only could it mean that the availability of money for these purposes would leave no money available for any of the GLC's other housing activities, not only does it depend on the uninsurable hazard of accepting the Secretary of State's word for it, but it is contradicted by the following categorical statement made by the Secretary of State in the House on 31 March:
The GLC has made requests of me…but the terms of the requests that it has made would assume that I am able to give commitments about the housing investment programme allocations for years to come. That is quite without precedent and I cannot do it."—[Official Report, 31 March 1981; Vol. 2, c. 155.]
So the Secretary of State's statement of 31 March completely detracts from any weight that there is in the assurances given in the letter of earlier this month.
The financial implications of the compulsory order are immense. The GLC will be required to bring the properties up to an acceptable standard, the so-called 10-point standard, within 10 years. The cost is estimated by the GLC at £200 million. The boroughs think that it may well be more. There will be other costs as well, costs to the boroughs that the GLC will be expected to meet. The GLC's comptroller of finance tells me that it is impossible to calculate how great those costs will be, but they are sure to run into many millions of pounds. They could include the cost of new offices and depots where those used by the GLC are situated in boroughs other than those named in the order, as well as of meeting the need to make sure that facilities are properly sited.
There will be new computers and computer programmes for rent accounting and staff pay. There will be the absorption of GLC staff into the staffs of the boroughs concerned. These requirements will be costly. Lewisham estimates that simply to reconcile its own bonus schemes with those of the GLC will take two years to work out and cost at least £160,000 in salaries and wages.
The requirements will be complicated. Working hours and pay differ for the GLC and the receiving boroughs. They can cause trouble. In three authorities where agreed transfers have taken place industrial action has been taken by workers on issues directly related to transfer. They can have ludicrous consequences. Hackney, for example, is


expected to accept 20 GLC gardening staff for estates maintenance without any of the equipment that they need to do their job.
The GLC housing department was deliberately run down under the Conservative majority. The records kept by the department are so inadequate that in one borough that received GLC houses voluntarily the Conservative-controlled council decorated a house before it discovered that the GLC had already sold it.
There will be appalling problems in reconciling the rents paid by the new tenants with those already paid to the borough councils. The GLC tenants at present pay much higher rents than those paid in at least some of the boroughs and they will not go on tolerating that. Yet getting some equity into the rent system will be particularly difficult for Lewisham, Hackney and Lambeth, which will be increasing their tenancy numbers under the order by 40 to 60 per cent.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that it is perfectly fair for adjacent neighbours to pay different rents provided their houses are owned by different authorities, but that it suddenly becomes inequitable if the houses are owned by the same authority?

Mr. Kaufman: It is not perfectly fair when neighbours are paying different rents to different authorities, but it is utterly unacceptable when they are paying them to the same authority.
All of the costs that I have mentioned are certain to lead to an increase in public expenditure at a time when the Secretary of State is ordering local authorities to cut their spending. Mr. Stonefrost, the comptroller of finance of the GLC, yesterday wrote to me a letter in which he said:
The terms of the Order (Schedule II) set out for each of the eight Boroughs the amounts deemed to be spent each year on the maintenance and management of stock to be transferred from 1.4.82 onwards. In all cases, the amounts to be spent exceed in real terms that level of expenditure which the Council hitherto has itself decided to spend on the maintenance and management of its dwellings.
Some of that expenditure will have to be covered by the Greater London Council, which does not want to transfer the houses. Some will have to be covered by the boroughs, which do not want to have the houses transferred to them.
These expenditure increases could push all the authorities into the penalty zone of the taper, if they are not there already. The authorities will also have to put up with the abuse of the Secretary of State for the overspending of money that he is forcing them to spend and that they do not wish to spend.

Mr. David Mellor: There is a little cant in the right hon. Gentleman's complaint about overspending. The right hon. Gentleman has listened to persistent statements from the new leadership of the GLC, which is pushing up expenditure in favour of municipal bus manufacturing plants and subsidising bus fares and street theatres at the expense of the Royal Opera House, without saying a word and now he is complaining about the one element of increased expenditure that might be of some benefit to people—bringing their houses up to standard.

Mr. Kaufman: Far from complaining, we are in favour of the expenditure. What we are not in favour of is the Secretary of State's forcing the expenditure and then penalising the local authorities for carrying it out.
The upheaval that the order will bring about will cause problems to the tenants affected and will cost money both to the tenants and to the ratepayers of the receiving boroughs and those in the rest of the GLC area.
How does the Secretary of State sum up the end product of his handiwork? Always a dogged and dedicated humorist, he declares that the transfer
will lead to more effective housing management in London."—[Official Report, 31 March 1981; Vol. 2, c. 154.]
What the Secretary of State is doing was never envisaged by those responsible for the Local Government Act 1963, whose provisions he is now misusing and distorting. He is stripping the GLC of almost all its remaining houses, yet the Ministers who carried through the Act saw for the GLC a major and continuing housing role. The Conservative Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government at that time told the House:
But we do accept that the Greater London Council will continue with the duties of helping in the redistribution and rehousing of the people of London, and we accept that for that purpose a pool of varied accommodation, fairly widely distributed over the area, is essential."—[Official Report, 10 December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 160.]
The Housing Minister at the time confirmed this, when he said later:
we are talking of what could be a growing pool because at the moment the L.C.C. is building at a rate of 4,000 to 5,000 dwellings a year, and the G.L.C. will be adding to its stock at, we hope, at least as fast a rate".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19 February 1963; c. 306–7.]
The Minister who gave that commitment was the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), now Secretary of State for Industry. The right hon. Gentleman was the Housing Minister who played a major part in foisting tower blocks on long-suffering tenants all over the country. The present Secretary of State for the Environment is not permitting any council dwellings of any kind to be built. What a rake's progress it has been—from high rise to low rise to no rise in 20 years! Now the Secretary of State for the Environment is breaking the commitment given by his predecessor in 1963 at the same time as he breaks the word that he gave to the House on 31 March this year.
Treating the House with contempt is nothing new for the right hon. Gentleman. Many hon. Members will remember how in 1973, as Minister for Aerospace and Shipping, he was rebuked by the Select Committee on Science and Technology in a report on the subject of Tracked Hovercraft Ltd. The right hon. Gentleman had made a statement in reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) which led the Select Committee to say in its report to the House:
Mr. Heseltine's answer to Mr. Stoddart's Question on 12th February was therefore untrue.
At least on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman had the grace to apologise. Since then he has made something of a habit of making statements that are not strictly true. The difference is that he no longer apologises.
In February last year, announcing his housing investment programme allocations for 1980–81, the right hon. Gentleman gave the House to understand that he had cut the allocations by 21 per cent. Only persistent questioning revealed that the cut for local authorities was in fact 33 per cent. He was at it again last December, when


he announced HIP allocations for the current financial year. This time he pretended that the cut was 15 per cent. Only further questioning disclosed that it was nearly twice as much, at 27 per cent.
Of course, it is not always the right hon. Gentleman's fault. Sometimes he has trouble being reported accurately. In the debate on the rate support grant order on 16 January last year he uttered the first of the long series of threats that he has made to local authorities, and said that his motivation for action would
be clear from the restricted number of authorities affected and from the speeches and decisions that they have made".
That was the corrigendum that appeared at column 1877 of Hansard on 17 January 1980. Somehow, in the original Hansard report, the reference to the speeches was left out. It was reinserted only thanks to the watchfulness of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). During that episode the Secretary of State had to be pulled up when he sought to improve the occasion still further by talking of giving instructions to Hansard.
No wonder the Secretary of State has found it safer not to make oral statements at all but to resort to written answers, as on that notorious occasion last November when in the dying moments of the Session he smuggled out a written answer about his curiously-named consultative document on council house rents. He was compelled to withdraw on that occasion, too—but only the document and only for a week. The rents have gone up all the same and to the highest level ever. The alleged consultation was revealed as a complete sham.
Therefore, it is not surprising that, on the most famous occasion in his career, the Secretary of State abandoned words altogether and resorted instead to physical action. He never seems to pause for thought. He never asks himself whether what he is doing is right. He is now embarking on a most serious confrontation with local government by threatening unprecedented penal legislation.
Last week, Councillor Ian S. McCallum, the Conservative chairman of the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, sent the Secretary of State a letter which said:
You will remember that at the last meeting of the Consultative Council I urged you not to proceed with your proposal to introduce new legislation this Autumn to impose further controls on local authorities' powers. This has since been confirmed by our Policy Committee in the light of the apparent intention to restrict the powers of local authorities to levy rates according to their judgment and to substitute the judgment of the Secretary of State. I believe it is only right that I should make it clear to you straight away that our Policy Committee are wholly opposed to what they understand this legislation is to involve; that the restriction is going beyond normal financial controls and entering the constitutional arena.
That is a solemn warning which the Secretary of State should heed.
There is still time for the Secretary of State to reform. There is still time for him to keep his word to the House and withdraw the compulsory transfer order. There is still time for him to abandon the planned further penal legislation against local government. There is still time for the right hon. Gentleman to avoid having attached to himself the grim and painful words written in another context by Alfred, Lord Tennyson:
His honour rooted in dishonour stood, And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The House will want me to start—

Mr. Frank Dobson: And finish.

Mr. Heseltine: The House will want me to start with the specific issue of the transfer of houses from the Greater London Council to the London boroughs. The history is well established in the minds of most right hon. and hon. Members.
The Herbert committee of 1960 pointed to the advantages of unifying public housing provision at the borough level of local government. I take the view that that was a sound policy judgment. It avoids the need for overlapping authorities providing virtually identical services and it places responsibility with that authority most clearly identified with local needs—in this case the London boroughs.
The Conservative-controlled GLC in 1977 embarked on a policy of achieving such a result using powers placed on the statute book by the London Government Act 1963. The previous Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore)—approved such a policy, albeit with the caveat that such transfer should be on a voluntary basis. The negotiations thus proceeded on a bipartisan basis and 160,000 houses, representing about three-quarters of the GLC stock, are being voluntarily transferred to 50 London and district councils under this process. Of those 50 authorities, 18 London boroughs are Conservative-controlled and six are Labour boroughs. That left only 53,400 houses when the eight remaining London boroughs failed to join in discussions about voluntary transfer.
In the spring—on 19 May—of 1980 the GLC formally approached me with a request that I should use the powers for compulsory transfer that had also been on the statute book since the 1963 Act and that had been left there since then by all Governments of both parties. I recognise that at this moment I was being asked to move away from the bipartisan approach, but it was the clear view of the GLC that this should happen and the existing law made provision for it.
There followed a long period of consultation about the desirability of such a move and about the terms of possible transfer. The matter was taken to the courts and they ruled that the proposed consultation period was not unreasonable. Even so, the consultation period was extended for the third time and I had to use my powers to ensure that the process of consultation was fair. For example, I insisted on the GLC carrying out detailed surveys of its stock in order to establish the condition and the liability attaching to that stock.
The House will understand—and it is crucial to what was to come that it should understand—that at this stage when I was consulting about the terms of a possible compulsory order, both sides—the GLC and the London boroughs—were negotiating in their best and different interests. In such circumstances, the London boroughs wanted high compensation and the GLC wanted to keep the terms of compensation to the most reasonable levels possible.
In the last resort I had to decide what to recommend to Parliament. As a matter of Government policy, I decided to proceed with the compulsory transfer of the properties.
I announced that to Parliament by way of an oral statement on 31 March. Taking the best advice available to me, I determined what I took to be a fair settlement for both sides and encompassed those terms in the order which I made on 2 April.
I now come to that part of the parliamentary proceedings on 31 March which gave rise to the motion today. In summary, my oral statement was the conclusion of a protracted period of negotiation in which both sides understandably fought their corner in their best interests. At no time did the GLC waiver in its determination to see the policy through but, like the boroughs, it argued about the terms. It would have been surprising if it had not as it had spent four years trying to bring the policy to fruition.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) asked me the following question in Parliament. I make no apologies for quoting it in full because it is crucial to an understanding of what has happened. It is interesting and typical of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) that he did not quote the hon. Member's words. The hon. Member asked:
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when, in May 1980, the Secretary of State was asked by Sir Horace Cutler to transfer the stock, Sir Horace was not aware of the enormous costs involved? Since Sir Horace has found out those costs he has asked the Secretary of State not to transfer the properties. The Secretary of State had that letter in February. He knows that that is the case. He is misleading the House. He knows that Sir Horace is aware that the cost factor over the 10 years will be £1,000 million or more and is now saying that the Secretary of State is wrong to carry out this proposal. Why does the Secretary of State persist in rebuffing Sir Horace by putting this burden on the people of London?
Those words led to the reply that I gave, and as I listened to the hon. Gentleman on 31 March I knew that he had completely misunderstood the position. He had completely misrepresented the views of Sir Horace Cutler. Virtually every part of his question contained serious errors and misjudgments.
The simplest reply that I could give, which I did, was:
I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. If Sir Horace should ask me to withdraw this compulsory order, I should, of course, be prepared to do so".—[Official Report, 31 March 1981; Vol. 2, c. 157.]
It was obvious to everybody at that time, and it is obvious to anyone who has read Hansard in context, and not in the way that the right hon. Member for Ardwick sought to read it, that my reply cannot be taken out of context of the question of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch.
I was saying that if Sir Horace Cutler had now discovered, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, enormous costs of which he had been unaware, as the hon. Gentleman said, and if Sir Horace had discovered that the whole basis of his four years' work was ill-founded and based on inaccurate facts, he had only to ask me to withdraw the order.
It follows that if Sir Horace's facts were wrong, he had only to ask me to withdraw, because the facts upon which Sir Horace had been working were the facts upon which I had been working. Therefore, if Sir Horace's facts were wrong, my facts were wrong, and I should have wanted to reconsider the situation. There is no other reasonable interpretation of what I said.

Mr. Christopher Price: rose—

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: There is no other reasonable interpretation, unless one takes the words wholly out of context and seeks to present them as meaning something quite different.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Before the right hon. Gentleman diverts his entire speech, in his customary fashion, into a totally irrelevant byway, will he say whether he accepts that there is a distinction between a Labour Government accepting that a willing GLC should be allowed to transfer its properties to a willing borough and what he is now doing, which is compelling an unwilling GLC to transfer properties to an unwilling borough?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in listening to what I say. He will remember that about 10 minutes ago I made precisely that point in one sentence as opposed to about six.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. Gentleman has just given us an elaborate reinterpretation of what he said in the House, but it is not what he actually said.

Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not use his words lightly. Doubtless he will seek to intervene in the debate. I can only tell the House what I said and the context in which I said it. The House will make its own judgment in the Lobbies about whose interpretation is correct.
As I said, Sir Horace made no such discoveries that persuaded him to ask me not to transfer the properties. There has been an attempt to mislead the House on this matter. I accept absolutely that what the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said on 31 March he said in good faith as a consequence of misinterpreting a letter written to the GLC as part of the negotiations to which I referred earlier. That should also be considered in the context of the letter of 24 February which, if it were the only letter he saw, could give the hon. Gentleman the impression which led him to ask his questions.
But I can in no way dismiss so lightly the antics of the right hon. Member for Ardwick, whose performance I find characteristically contemptible. The right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the policy, and that is his legitimate right. But he has sought to make the narrowest of party points without making the slightest attempt, so far as I am aware, to check with Sir Horace whether what I said was true or not.
I can help the right hon. Gentleman further, because I have checked. I shall now read a letter from Sir Horace Cutler, dated 22 May. That date is significant. It was the day after the right hon. Gentleman came to see me to raise these ill-founded allegations for the first time. That was two months after I first made the statement which is now the subject of our debate, and it was three weeks after the order came into operation. Despite the vast catalogue of complaints about which we have heard today, the Opposition decided not to pray against the order.
I must weary the House with the views of the man whose opinion is central to the debate because they are the views of the man whom I was supposed to misrepresent.—[Iterruption.] It is no use Labour Members now trying to escape from the hole into which they have dug themselves. The whole basis of the debate was the hon. Gentleman's


allegations that I had misrepresented Sir Horace Cutler. The only person who can know what Sir Horace Cutler believed is Sir Horace Cutler. I can therefore well understand the fact that Labour Members do not want to listen to what is coming next. This is what Sir Horace said:
I have seen the Parliamentary reports on the exchange in the House of Commons on 21 May 1981 about the Greater London Council (Transfer of Land and Housing Accommodation) (2) Order 1981. Reference was made to the attitude of the GLC to this proposed Order during the earlier months of this year. In that context, of course, I note that in the brief debate following your statement on 31 March it was stated that I asked you not to transfer the properties. At no stage was this the case".
I hope that those hon. Members who lightly bandy around charges of misleading the House will have the grace to admit that for whatever reason, and however much misunderstanding there might have been, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch was not right in suggesting that that was the position. Sir Horace made it quite clear that:
At no stage was this the case".
There is also the question of the letters quoted—again, selectively—by the right hon. Member for Ardwick. The second part of Sir Horace's letter deals with those. He states:
Reference was also made to the letter sent to your Department by the Director-General of the GLC on 24 February 1981. That letter did contain the sentence: 'Unless the two amendments requested can be included, the Order as at present drafted does not place the Council in a financial position to accept the terms'. However, I believe it is essential for that sentence to be seen in the context of a long negotiation on terms, during which all parties were seeking to secure the best outcome for themselves."—

Mr. Dobson: But not for the tenants.

Mr. Heseltine: The letter continued:
In the event, the final decision on the Order was yours. What anyone reading that letter might not have realised was not only was it part of a process of negotiation but that the terms of the Order which you announced to Parliament on 31 March were different to those in the draft Order about which that letter was written. The terms were different in ways that to some extent assisted the boroughs and in others the GLC. Moreover, on the particular points that concerned us on block grant and capital allocations you were able to help us in part with our concern. But as I say the letter of 24 February was in itself a negotiating letter and not in any way intended to suggest that the Order should not be made".
I have no hesitation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in saying to you that in this matter I have treated the House with the high regard that it is entitled to expect of any Secretary of State. I sometimes feel that the right hon. Member for Ardwick would profit from spending rather less time lecturing others about standards of which he is so careless.
The most extraordinary feature of the motion is that it is drawn on such a narrow part of our work in the Department of the Environment. What it reveals most clearly is that the Opposition would rather devote one of their precious Supply days to a narrow personal attack on me than debate any of the serious policy issues that affect us. So deeply do the Labour Opposition resent the range of areas in which we are now showing results to replace their failure that all that is left to them is personal abuse and personal attack.
Perhaps I may make one claim. In attacking me there is at least one issue on which the whole Labour Party is totally united, and it is a devastating indictment of the Labour Party. I doubt whether there is a single policy issue of which the same can be said.
In asking for the confidence of the House—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: There will be plenty of opportunity for hon. Members to say what they want to say.
The right hon. Member for Ardwick, to flesh out a meagre case, raised a whole range of policy issues on which he disagreed with the Government. It is, therefore, not unreasonable that I should say something about the range of activities in which the Department of the Environment has been involved.
I took over a Department in which for over five years there had been an almost total absence of political will and decision. I understand that the most absorbing and challenging task for the Ministers in the Department of the Enviroment was to arrange an appointment to see the Secretary of State. The mind boggles as we look back at the image of those five ministerial boxes of unanswered questions that he took home at night and the five ministerial boxes of unanswered questions that he brought back the following morning.
There was year after year of good intentions and vacuous indecision. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar, wanted to introduce an improved system for the distribution of rate support grant, but the high-spending Labour authorities would not have it. He wanted to deal with the land problem. All we had was the derisory Community Land Act. We are now revealing through the land registers where the real scandal of land lies. It lies in the thousands of acres of unused and underused publicly-owned land in the inner cities with which we are now getting to grips.
The then Secretary of State wanted to relax the general development order to improve the planning machine. but he got the judgment wrong and had to abandon the attempt. It was left to us to sort out the mess. He paid lip service to the heritage, but forgot to do anything about the. Grange, Temple Bar and Barlaston Hall, which were left to deteriorate. I am sure that he cared, or said that he cared, about conservation, but the 3,000 sites of special scientific interest were left without ministerial scrutiny. This same negative approach has commended itself to the right hon. Member for Ardwick who has taken his place.
We have heard a lot today about the interests of council tenants. We heard a lot about that when Labour was in Government. But it took the Conservative Government to enact a tenants' charter, giving security and status. It was left to us, after all the talk, to reform the scandal of the direct labour organisations. The right hon. Member for Ardwick says that he believes in home ownership, but it was left to the Conservatives to produce legislation under which a quarter of a million council tenants have applied to buy their homes.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the housing problems of inner city areas, yet no man carries a heavier personal responsibility than he carries for denying those who seek homes the opportunity of a shorthold tenancy. If the Opposition do not like our shortholds, how can they square their consciences with five years' of abject failure even to agree on proposals to publish about the private rented sector?
The right hon. Member for Ardwick makes much of his concern for the House. He has even written a book entitled "How to be a Minister" in which, on page 95, he describes his approach to the making of a winding-up speech. These are his words:


Your final paragraphs should be grandiloquent even if almost meaningless.
The right hon. Gentleman is in the process of converting one sentence into a life's work.
I ask the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If this had been a court of law, it would have been quite proper, after the letter from Sir Horace Cutler had been read to the House, for the defence to submit that there was no case to answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. This is the House of Commons.

Mr. Roland Moyle: I have listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—I nearly called him my right hon. Friend the Member for the London borough of Ardwick, so great is his mastery of the intricacies of London local government—and I associate myself with everything he has said.
I have also listened to the Secretary of State for the Environment's contemptible attempt to defend his conduct in the House on 31 March. What he said then was, clearly, that if Sir Horace Cutler asked him to withdraw the order he would do so. Because of that, the Opposition did not pray against the order. We realised that the Labour Party would gain control of the Greater London Council and that the council accordingly would ask the Secretary of State to withdraw the order. We assumed that as he was an honourable man—indeed, a right honourable man—he would do so. He did not do so; that is why we did not pray against the order, and that is why the transfer is going through.
The Secretary of State's only attempt to defend himself was to try to put the soft quivering mental state of Sir Horace Cutler between him and the bullets coming from the Opposition and also to say that he was not dishonest on 31 March but merely incompetent, because he was unable to convey to the House the meaning of what he intended to say. Anyone who looks at the record will see that he deliberately misled the House on that occasion, whether because of dishonesty or incompetence, and that led to the order not being prayed against.
There is a considerable ground for transferring the control and management of housing estates in London to local people so that they can be managed better by people who understand them, provided that three conditions are met. These conditions are that there should be coordination among the Government, the Greater London Council and the London boroughs to ensure proper financial provision so that the London boroughs are not asked to shoulder an unbearable burden. Secondly, there should be a good mobility scheme. Thirdly, the GLC should remain substantially in the housing business. It is not clear to me that these conditions are being met under the proposals that are being forced on London by the Secretary of State.
The financial worries centre mainly on the capital provision that is being made. There is provision for the GLC to bring houses up to an acceptable standard over a 10-year period. The Greater London boroughs want most

of that work to be concentrated in the first of the 10 years so that tenants will quickly have good conditions in their houses.
We already note, however, that the Greater London Council housing capital allocations are being cut. Failure by the GLC to meet targets laid upon it will lead to its having to pay penalties to the London boroughs, which will mean more difficulty in bringing the houses up to a proper standard. That does not bode well for the responsibilities to be undertaken by the London boroughs, particularly the borough of Lewisham—and I represent about 20,000 inhabitants of GLC properties in my constituency.
In any case, the sums allocated to the transferred estates are based purely on guesswork. There has been no real survey of the condition of the properties to be handed over to provide a basis for calculating the sums needed for the capital programme. Above all else, the London boroughs want a proper sample survey of the property to be handed over so that a proper calculation can be made of the capital sums required so that they may be applied to the maintenance and care of the property.
Absolutely no provision is made in the financial estimates and the rate support grant for the borough councils to undertake the vast cost of assimilating the various housing policies of the GLC with their own housing policies to produce an overall and uniform standard of council house care. This means that failure is inevitable in meeting the financial burdens to be placed upon the shoulders of the London boroughs. Indeed, I would say to my constituents that the terms and conditions being imposed by the Government will mean the creation of slums by the thousand in London, possibly within a few years, as a result of the totally inadequate financial provision. As all Opposition Members know, council estates can be converted into slums if they are not properly looked after.
I turn to the mobility scheme. I should have thought that a good mobility scheme would be close to the Secretary of State's heart, as he is no doubt a dedicated believer in industrial efficiency. He probably wants people to move to where the new industries are to be developed. I believe that work should be taken to the workless, rather than their having to pursue the work but nevertheless, if people wish to move to maintain their standard of living and to find new jobs, obstacles should not be placed in their way by an inadequate mobility scheme imposed on Londoners. I shall not go into details as there is not time, but there is a general consensus among the Secretary of State's officials, the GLC and the London boroughs that the present mobility scheme is wholly inadequate.
Finally, the GLC should be left in the housing business in a substantial way. By virtue of its role as a strategic authority for London and its central position, it is the only local government body which can induce an element of flexibility in the solution of London's housing problems, which are massive and will remain so for many years to come. Flexibility is an essential element in dealing with those problems. It would also help to bolster up the inadequate mobility scheme. Already, constituents of mine living in GLC houses and wishing to transfer to other parts of London are being rejected on the ground that the GLC owns no houses in the parts of London to which they wish to move.
I turn to a group of problems on which the Secretary of State has been almost entirely silent. At no time has he


taken the initiative in discussing what is to happen to the employees of the GLC in the transfer which may take place. No great enterprise will succeed unless the people expected to carry it out are not only content but see a future for themselves in carrying it out. There is a grave danger that the whole transfer will be devilled by industrial relations problems due to the cavalier attitude taken by the Secretary of State towards the industrial relations problems involved in the transfer.
I raised this matter with the Secretary of State when he made his announcement on 31 March. At that stage, he was relying entirely on the staff protection order and the London housing staff commission to solve the problems. The staff commission, however, can work only within the terms of the staff protection order. It is powerless outside those limits. We have now had three years' experience of the operation of that order and also the first wave of housing transfers within London. Several grave defects have been revealed in the order. The Secretary of State promised on 31 March:
of course I shall keep an eye on it—[Official Report, 31 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 160.]
—meaning the problem of industrial relations. In the faint hope that that is not another promise to be lightly brushed aside—I see that it probably is, as the Secretary of State is now leaving the Chamber—I put these points forward for consideration by the Under-Secretary of State.
First, the boroughs say that the best way to solve the problem of transfers with the minimum cost is for ownership of the houses to be transferred to the London boroughs but for their management to remain with the GLC on an agency basis. Immediately, however, a snag arises under the staff protection order, in that its protection provisions run from the day on which the transfer order is signed and comes into force. This means that the agency arrangements might outrun the period of protection set out in the protection order, so that when the agency provision comes to an end the employees concerned will have no grounds for protection under the order. The protection order should therefore be amended to ensure that it operates from the date on which the agency arrangements come to an end.
Secondly, the compensation regulations do not cover young employees on short service, identified as those with less than five years' service. In these days of 2½ million unemployed, rising steadily to 3 million, and a Government unable or unwilling to take any action to stem that rise, young men and women such as these are just as likely to wish to cling to their jobs as their more established colleagues with the London boroughs, and, if they lose their jobs, their sense of loss is scarcely less acute. This, too, must mean that the compensation regulations under the staff protection order should be amended.
There is no compensation under the regulations for loss of bonus, for example. As a result, employees transferred to the City of Westminster have been faced with a demand that their earnings be cut by 25 per cent. Other examples include the mobile caretaking teams employed by the GLC, involving between 500 and 600 employees. The boroughs, by and large, do not have such teams. There are therefore no comparable terms to them to enjoy when they go to the receiving London borough.
Bromley and Sutton, for example, took over mobile caretaking teams from the GLC in the first wave of transfers. Against union advice, a number of those

employees signed new terms and conditions of service with the boroughs of Bromley and Sutton. Within 18 months, those who had signed the new terms and conditions of service were sacked. The only ones to survive were those who took the union's advice and did not sign. Other boroughs have taken on these mobile teams on an agency basis only. They will not have them on a permament basis. They are due to start phasing them out on 1 August this year, so the teams will eventually be left out on a limb.
There are therefore plenty of problems to be solved under the provisions of the staff protection order and the compensation regulations. The staff protection order should also be amended to allow staff seconded to the London boroughs on an agency or any other basis to return to the GLC at a later stage if it is necessary to secure protection for their employment prospects.
All my proposals are for amending legislation for which the Secretary of State is responsible to the House, so he must take action. He has rejected the first step that he should take, but I hope that he will reconsider it. He should see a deputation from the trade unions to discuss amending the legislation. I trust that on this occasion he will stand by the promise that he gave me on 31 March to keep an eye on the problems and will not follow the practice of lightly breaking a promise, as he did his promise to withdraw the order if the GLC asked that that should be done.

5 pm

Mr. Den Dover: I agree with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) about the need to transfer housing down to the lowest local level, but I do not agree that the GLC should continue to be a major housing authority. We heard something of that this afternoon. There was the Marshall inquiry. There is the need to have a strategic authority such as the GLC. However, that goes against the role that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Although the Secretary of State needs no support, having made his statement, I am pleased to defend him against the wholly unwarranted accusations of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who has left the Chamber.

Mr. Dobson: He is still in the Chamber, unlike the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dover: I object to the fact that the Opposition say that the Secretary of State, by his clear statement on 31 March, wished to stop the GLC having its way. He made it absolutely clear that Sir Horace Cutler and the Conservative-controlled GLC had four or five weeks before the election to let him know whether it wanted the order withdrawn. Correspondence has been quoted today, but it does not show that the Conservative-controlled GLC was against the spirit of transfer. It shows only that it was against certain financial details of the provisions. That is significant.
The Opposition are frustrated by my right hon. Friend's success. There was no difference of opinion between the Conservative-controlled GLC and the Government. Their policies were absolutely in line in three main areas. First, the Secretary of State gave council tenants—in the GLC area, in new towns and throughout the country—the right to buy their accommodation, whatever the local authority


felt. That was a marvellous innovation and followed hard on the heels of Sir Horace Cutler's "sale of the century", when thousands of tenants took advantage of the opportunity to buy and look after their accommodation.

Mr. Clinton Davis: What good is that to the 16,000 people on the waiting list in Hackney, who have no reasonable chance to purchase their own property?

Mr. Dover: They have at least the opportunity to buy. Our policy is to have rented accommodation for those unable to buy, such as the elderly and infirm, but sitting tenants are able to buy at large discounts.

Mr. John Heddle: The answer for the 16,000 people on the waiting list in Hackney is that the Government introduced realistic shorthold provisions in the Housing Act that are being frustrated by irresponsible policy statements by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), which are stopping private landlords, housing associations and so on in Hackney providing private rented accommodation that those people would dearly love to have.

Mr. Dover: I entirely agree.
The GLC attempted to transfer dwellings with a large measure of success. Dwellings have been transferred not only to Conservative-controlled London boroughs. A large number have also been transferred to Labour-controlled London boroughs.
From 1968 to 1971, I had the privilege of being a London borough councillor with the London borough of Barnet, which was for ever trying to get its houses from the GLC. It had earlier transfers from the London county council, which had been a great success. They were older properties, and the housing revenue account benefited thereby. Over the past few years, Barnet has agreed with the GLC major transfers of housing stock, which was first-class for the borough's residents and also had the effect that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East pointed out: it gave local control and consistency in rents. Residents have better local knowledge of housing conditions.

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstood me. I hope that we can have consistency in rents, but no money is provided so that the London boroughs can achieve that without getting themselves into the penalty box. While we are at it, would it not be a good idea if we had some London Conservative Members in the Chamber to defend the Secretary of State's misconduct in London?

Mr. Dover: I reject that comment. I am an ex-director of housing construction with the GLC, so I have close knowledge of the matter. The Conservative-controlled GLC had detailed and protracted discussions with London borough councils, which led to acceptable conditions being established. We have heard of the large transfers that have taken place. Why are the eight Labour-controlled London boroughs unwilling to see through the transfer in the interests of their residents?
The Secretary of State's policy on direct works is in line with that of the Conservative-controlled GLC. For the first time, direct works provisions will be openly accountable.

Before I took up my position in April 1977, the GLC produced its own valuations without independent checks on whether they were correct. I brought in outside accountants shortly after my entry and made sure that we had independent valuations by outside quantity surveyors on sites where I felt that the figures were not absolutely correct. Before long, it became apparent that we were making a loss of £2 or £3 million a year on a turnover of £15 to £20 million.
On my recommendation, the GLC immediately decided to halve the direct works department. The rolling programme would not be 5,000 new houses a year and modernisation of estates longer than that but only about 1,000 new houses a year, so it made sense to reduce the department. By voluntary severance and natural wastage it was possible to reduce the staff from over 3,000 to about 1,000. There was then not too much of a loss, but since I left in June 1979 the loss has been about £6 or £7 million a year on a turnover of only £6 or £7 million a year. The percentage loss has increased from about 15 per cent. or so to about 100 per cent.
What should the Labour-controlled GLC do? Should it continue to wind down the department, finish off the contracts and say "Sorry. We do not need new housing or an enormous modernisation programme, and the last thing that we want is a direct labour organisation that is inefficient compared with private enterprise and on independently assessed accounts."? However, Mr. Livingstone and his colleagues want to recreate and build up London community builders, which is in direct confrontation with the Government. It is also directly opposed to our position and policies on this important subject. We want properly accounted direct works departments. Indeed, we want to see them making a return on the capital employed in them. That is the target that we have set for such departments.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that the Labour-controlled GLC should think about giving value for money to the ratepayers who have to fork out for such activity?

Mr. Dover: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what direct works departments should do. Indeed, that is also what housing in general should do. The Secretary of State has ensured that the thousands of millions of pounds of housing subsidies—which we cannot afford and do not need—have been markedly reduced in the past two years. He is now saying that direct works departments will have to pay their way and give value for money.
I offer the following challenge to Mr. Livingstone. Will he have the courage of his convictions and wind up the direct works department? Will he let out the work to private contractors? Indeed, we have heard that there is a £100 million programme of modernisation work before the transfer of assets will take place. Or, on the other hand, will Mr. Livingstone take the stupid course of building up London community builders? From my inside knowledge of local authority direct labour organisations all over the country, I guarantee that that will lead to enormous losses, to supplementary rates and to great deficits on the housing revenue accounts. The Opposition would support such policies, but the Secretary of State does not support them. He wants to see value for money in housing, and local control by the transfer of assets to local individuals and the


London boroughs. I support those measures and therefore it has given me great pleasure to speak in support of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) observed that only the Minister was present out of the 52 Conservative Members who represent London constituencies. My right hon. Friend was not wrong to make that observation. It is not unreasonable to ask that some of those Conservative Members should be in the Chamber. I do not know why they have had to rely on the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) to debate London matters.
If the hon. Member for Chorley wishes to discuss his tenure of office when he was a paid servant of the GLC, I shall be happy to join him in the Chamber at any time. That period was disastrous and the appalling performance when he left office was a little unsavoury. Normally I should not say such things, but since the hon. Gentleman has put himself in the front line I am happy to oblige him.
In an extraordinary way, the Secretary of State attempted to get himself out of the penalty box by putting me there. He said that I should not have asked my question. If I had not asked my question, he would not have given me an answer. He seemed to say that if he had not given me an answer we would all have been happy and everything would have been all right. There is an extraordinary contortion in that argument.
I shall take the right hon. Gentleman through the story, although I had not intended to do so. About 10 hon. Members intervened before me during the debate on the right hon. Gentleman's statement. All the Secretary of State's bureaucrats had an opportunity to write him a statement. He need have made no mistake.
He knew about the letter of 24 February. He knew that it could be misinterpreted and he knew that we had already held meetings and discussed the matter. Therefore, his bureacrats could have written exactly what he needed to say. He could have put in all the caveats, statements and offers, and written a letter.
The Secretary of State said:
In May 1980 the Greater London Council requested me".
I waited for him to explain where the change was. However, he did not. When he concluded he made no offers and merely made a bald statement. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) would intervene and probe him further. I waited, but the Secretary of State still refused to come clean. After about 10 interventions I decided to ask him whether he remembered the letter of 24 February. I had to put my question succinctly, but it centred on the letter of 24 February. I drew out what was in the letter.
The Secretary of State could have done one of two things. He is an experienced parliamentarian and knows how to operate. He then said that I had got everything wrong and that I had misinterpreted the letter. He could have been right. If so, he could have explained. He was well briefed and could have said that, although I had got everything wrong, he would explain why the letter of 24 February was not right. However, he did not do that. He got up and made a simple statement. He said:
I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. If Sir Horace should ask me to withdraw this compulsory order, I should, of course, be prepared to do so."—[Official Report, 31 March 1981; Vol. 2, c. 154–7.]

That is a simple statement of fact and an offer.
The Secretary of State tries to pretend that he thought I had got everything wrong. If he was merely trying to help, he could have included several caveats. He could have said that if Sir Horace wrote to him within two days he would withdraw the order. He could have said that if Sir Horace or the council thought that things were wrong they could go to him and he would discuss the matter with them. He could have said that he would give them until a certain time if they wished to see him. He did not say any such thing; he did not impose any constraints.
Later my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) asked whether that promise would hold good after 6 May. The Secretary of State could have answered straight away. One simple word would have been sufficient. He could have said "No". Did he do the honourable thing, which he was already twisting on? He could have said "No", but he did not. He gave a long story and said that efforts had been made for 20 years. He said that the policies would be pursued by the GLC. He concluded by saying that my hon. Friends and I should wait to see what happened before making forecasts about the policy that would be pursued. He did not say "No". He did not rebut the argument that after 8 May he would receive a letter.
It is no good the Secretary of State pretending that this is a cut-and-dried issue and that I have got things wrong while he has got things right. It is no good his thinking that everything has gone wrong for us. It has not. When he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood, he compounded his felony. He could have said "No, it will not last because I have no intention of receiving a letter." I submit that he stands condemned if only for that one day, 31 March. It is offensive that the right hon. Gentleman should have corrupted his Department as well.

Mr. Dickens: Oh.

Mr. Brown: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has read the letter of 18 May. If he had represented a London constituency he might have seen it. That letter was sent to Sir James Swaffield. The letter did not say that in response to an irresponsible question by a Member of Parliament the Secretary of State said that he would be prepared to withdraw. The letter did not say that. It states:
However, in view of your correspondence with the Department"—
that is the 24 February letter—
at that time about the terms of transfer, when announcing his decision to the House on 31 March, the Secretary of State thought it right to remind your Council that it could still withdraw its request under Section 23(3) before he made the order.
The Secretary of State did not answer two things. Why not? He did not talk about Sir Horace Cutler. Mention is now made of "your council". The letter states
before he made the order".
The right hon. Gentleman did not say that to me. He did not say that he would withdraw if the application was made before he laid the order.
Therefore, the Department is deliberately twisting. Where is the statement? I searched for it again. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would show me where the statement contained the words allegedly contained in his letter of 18 May.
The letter stated:
However, in view of your correspondence with the Department at that time about the terms of transfer, when announcing his decision to the House on 31 March, the Secretary of State thought it right to remind your council".


When did he do that? I do not believe it is right for the Secretary of State to sit smirking when he could have shown where he said that in his statement. He knows that he did not.
It is sad that I should have to talk in this manner. I have a regard for the Secretary of State. His behaviour, however, has been reprehensible. It was incumbent upon him to explain at the Dispatch Box if I had got the matter wrong. He did not say that in his speech. He did not offer to withdraw, on submission, if it was done before he laid the order. He stands condemned by that part alone.
We have always thought Sir Horace Cutler a bit of a comedian. We have had good value from him over the years in GLC debates. I do not object to the fact that he is wheeled in now at the death to say something about things of which he knew nothing when he was in charge. I am sure that he knows nothing about them now that he is not in charge. It is interesting to see what he says.
The Under-Secretary of State was helpful to me when I was trying to get information from the Greater London Council at the time. I was continually in touch with the director of disposals, as he was called. The hon. Gentleman helped me to get something but he had to fight hard to get it. It took months. This is the great man who is wheeled up to me to tell me what a great guy he is and what he meant. If the Secretary of State is prepared to accept what Sir Horace says, why does he not tell the House why Sir Horace deliberately withheld the document "Housing Strategy Appraisal 1981–83"? Why did he not say that when it was deliberately made impossible for hon. Members to get the information?
I shall explain one of the reasons. Page 99 of the document deals with difficult-to-let dwellings. It was estimated that there were about 100,000 difficult-to-let properties in London of which, it states, 30 per cent. were in inner London alone. As my beloved borough of Hackney has to take back 17,800 of these properties, it must have the maximum amount of difficult-to-let properties. Why should he consider therefore that Hackney wants them back in the terms he offered them? Sir Horace could have been as forthright when in office as he appears to have become out of office. He could have published the document. Before the right hon. Gentleman takes matters at Sir Horace's word, I want to know more. I should like to probe him further about why he did the things he did when he was in office.
I turn now to the argument about the cost. I have had an exchange of letters with the Under-Secretary of State pointing out that he cannot be right when he told me that the amount of money that would have to be paid had been worked out, under the system, at £1,268 per unit. I drew his attention many times to the fact that this could not be right. Why does he think that these difficult-to-let flats, of which Hackney has a majority, are difficult to let? Because they are in good order and only need £1,268 to be spent on them? Does he imagine that this is the only reason that people are turning them down? The flats are turned down because it will cost a fortune to put them in good order. To be informed that the cost will be only £1,268 per unit for the 17,800 properties that will come to Hackney is a disgrace. He knows that it is a disgrace.
To emphasise what I mean, I have raised in the House the case of Benfleet Court, consisting of 29 properties that are 16 years old. The sum of £270,000 had to be spent on

the roofs. The contract had been finished and agreed. I was brought into the matter by the tenants because it was an absolute disgrace. We had meetings on site, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We spoke about it. It was finally agreed that the council would undertake further work. The hon. Gentleman wrote to me saying that he had raised the matter with the chairman of the housing committee, George Tremlett. He kindly sent me a copy of the reply by George Tremlett in which he said:
It was made clear to Ron Brown at the site meeting that they"—
the building problems—
had not been overlooked".
That was not true. Otherwise, there would be no point in my intervention. That is why three months had elapsed without anyone doing anything. They had been overlooked. He went on to say:
all this work has been listed and the contractor is remedying the things that are his responsibility, or for which the Council has agreed to pay. A few items of ordinary building maintenance are being attended to by the Housing Department's Maintenance Branch.
That sounds easy. The sum of those so-called few items is £15,000, or £500 a unit. On a basis of £500 a unit, how can the hon. Gentleman tell me that the cost involved in all these difficult-to-let properties that we shall get back is only £1,268? How can he say that if half that sum is for a few items on a contract of £270,000 for 29 properties that are only 16 years old?
The figures on which the Secretary of State has been working are not correct and cannot be correct. He knows that they are not correct. This is why the GLC was concerned and wanted to pull out of the exercise. The GLC knew it was faced with an enormous cost if the proposal was approved. The Secretary of State is well aware that the last thing that the GLC wanted was to have a survey of its properties. Forced by his Department even to think about it, the council only wanted 1,000 properties to be involved. By the strong action of the Under-Secretary of State, the GLC was forced to accept that another 4,000 should be surveyed, making a total of 5,000 properties. He tries to pretend that the GLC was anxious to help. It was not. It did not want to know the answer. When it finally got the answer, the 24 February letter became obvious because it recognised that it could not stand the burden of the cost in terms of money and, above all, the penalty box in which it would find itself.
I turn finally to the issue of mobility. The hon. Gentleman said to me:
As for mobility, the arrangements in this and in the previous orders provide sufficient scope for tenants who need to move".
Time and again I have written to the Minister raising individual cases as an example of what is happening. I should like to read a GLC reply, dealing with a case, dated 29 May 1981:
You are no doubt aware that as a result of the Transfer of Estates, the Greater London Council no longer has any property available for letting in the Waltham Abbey area".
That is a very desirable area where many people want to live. But property is not available. The hon. Gentleman is aware that Waltham Abbey will not offer any properties. If he says that it will offer properties, I simply ask why it did not do so before. I could have produced a trunk full of letters. I have another dated 29 May, which states:
You, of course, realise that the Greater London Council has no property in the Upminster area"—
it was Waltham Abbey before; now it is Upminster—


consequently Mrs. Lowe can only be considered for property in that district within the scope of the Mobility Scheme and that an offer will be made when the opportunity arises".
It is unlikely that the opportunity will arise for her.
When the right hon. Gentleman tells me and other hon. Members that the mobility scheme is all in order and will work from 1 April 1982, that is not true and he knows that it is not true. Every hon. Gentleman can produce the sort of letters that have been quoting.
There are two elements in this matter. The Secretary of State has given the House an unequivocal undertaking that is not hemmed in by "ifs" and "buts" or time. I am asking him to honour that undertaking. He has received the letter for which he asked and has sought for the order to be withdrawn on grounds that are not political: the first is because implementation will be impossible. Secondly, the cost factor is enormous and we do not know the figure. It is thought to be £450 million. If I am in the House in five years' time, I believe that the figure will be the £1,000 million to which I referred in my question to the right hon. Gentleman. Thirdly, the scheme is incapable of being used for mobility of the people in my constituency and in London generally.
I hope that the House will agree that the Secretary of State's conduct was a disgrace on that occasion. He gave an undertaking and I believe implicitly that he meant what he said. I urge him at this late hour to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that he thinks there was a misunderstanding, that it can be misconstrued and that he proposes to withdraw the order.

Mr. Robert Adley: I do not know what Mr. Tremlett said to Sir Horace Cutler or what Mr. Livingstone said about the Secretary of State. To be honest, I am not greatly concerned. Anyone listening to the debate could be excused for thinking that we are in Hackney council chamber rather than in the House of Commons.
Today's Order Paper contains the motion
Conduct of the Secretary of State for the Environment".
I do not propose to discuss the details of correspondence that may have passed between the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I prefer to deal with the few words comprising the heading of the motion—the conduct of the Secretary of State for the Environment. I propose to speak on the motion as it affects my constituents.
My constituents have a deep and abiding reason to be grateful to my right hon. Friend, especially those who live in local authority dwellings. For reasons with which I shall not weary the House, the New Forest district council was the only Conservative council that was unwilling to sell houses to sitting tenants. Many of my constituents had waited for years for a Conservative Government to fulfil the pledges that the Conservative Party has made for many years and which were repeated at every opportunity at the last general election—that those tenants in my constituency who have lived in their houses for some years, specifically in the New Forest district council area of my constituency, would have the opportunity to buy their homes. I made the promise to fight for that opportunity for them at the last election, and my right hon. Friend has done everything that I could have wanted him

to do on their behalf. I take this opportunity, as I properly should, to defend my right hon. Friend against an attack on his integrity.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. In my constituency no fewer than 1,200 people have applied to buy their council houses and so far that right has not been given to them by the Socialist local authority. I am in correspondence with my right hon. Friend's Department in the hope that he will intervene on my constituents' behalf to see that they get their rights under law.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. With his diligence and the determination of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to uphold the law, my hon. Friend's constituents can rest happy in the knowledge that in due course the rights which should have been conferred on them by Parliament will be conferred on them by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
My right hon. Friend said that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was making a narrow personal attack. My right hon. Friend sounded surprised. Who in the House is more narrow and who is more likely to launch a personal attack on anybody and everybody than the right hon. Member for Ardwick? The truth is that the motion is two things. First, it is merely a diversion by the Labour Party to distract attention from its permanent state of internecine warfare, much in the way that the Soviet Union, to distract its people's attention from famine and want, launches vitriolic attacks upon the People's Republic of China. Secondly, it is a naked vehicle being used by the right hon. Member for Ardwick to further his ambition to rise within the Labour Party hierarchy. We know that there is no one on the Left to whom the right hon. Gentleman will not kow-tow, that there is no hook on which he is not prepared to hang himself, and that there is no role that he is not prepared to take up to secure his preferment within the Labour Party.

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is not very good.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) managed to rise to his feet yesterday, so perhaps it is too much to expect him to do the same today. If he would like to do so, I should be more than happy to give way, but I realise that the effort might be too much.
A former Member for Wanstead and Woodford, who was in the House some 30 years ago, once said of a former Member for Barking "He is not as nice as he looks". No one would say that about the right hon. Member for Ardwick—he is.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend mentioned the sale of council houses and the tenants' charter. The Government, and my right hon. Friend as the agent of the Government, have given council tenants a once in a. lifetime opportunity to escape from the bondage of permanent local authority tenancy. There is nothing that the House of Commons could have done more quickly and certainly to achieve that objective. My right hon. Friend referred to the private rented sector. The attitude of the right hon. Member for Ardwick to the private rented sector is on the record. He wishes to abolish it.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am finding that many erstwhile Labour voters who voted Tory are


bitterly disappointed that they cannot afford to buy the homes that were promised to them. We find in the London suburbs that that has caused a great deal of disappointment, not joy, among those who now have the right to buy. I agree that the dream of many of them is to own their homes, but they have discovered that they cannot afford to do so.

Mr. Adley: I assume that the hon. Gentleman will support the Government in their determination to fight inflation and will be delighted that interest rates here are falling as they rise in most other countries in the free world. That will do more to bring down the cost of mortgages and money and will allow more of his constituents to buy their homes.
My right hon. Friend has some interesting ideas on the heritage and architecture which I doubt have even occurred to the right hon. Member for Ardwick. My right hon. Friend referred in passing to city centre land and the hoarding of land that has taken place in the last two generations, mainly by public bodies. I do not know whether he is yet in a position to release details of land holdings. When he does, I have no doubt that he will shock and surprise many people with the details that he discloses. I do not doubt that he will help the country to reverse a persistent trend which we all reject, namely, that more and more agricultural land is taken up for development in the absence of opportunity to redevelop land in the city centres.

Mr. Heseltine: I am following my hon. Friend's contribution with great interest. I answered a parliamentary question last Friday and listed the result of the first 27 registers of inner city sites, which show that there are over 1,500 sites of over one acre of unused and underused land. The total land covered by the 1,500 sites is 15,000 acres.

Mr. Adley: That is an astonishing amount of land. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking the opportunity to make that known. It is a tragedy that the media often concentrate on trivia. That information is of the utmost significance to urban development and rural protection. I hope that when the survey is completed my right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House rather than provide a written reply. Perhaps I should mildly criticise my right hon. Friend for choosing to announce such good news in a written answer.
Another matter which should be discussed en passant in this brief debate is the need for reform of our rating system. I do not propose tonight to offer solutions. However, for many of my constituents it is a matter of great urgency. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for deciding to tackle the problem. One point on which the right hon. and absent Member for Ardwick and my right hon and present Friend the Secretary of State will agree is that the increasing Government control over local government that has taken place in the last 50 years is unlikely to be reversed. In my constituency at least there is a voluble demand for something which would have been unthinkable some years ago. I refer to a block grant allocation by the Government to local authorities and the removal from local authorities of the power to raise finance through local rates. I do not mention the subject lightly. It is controversial. However, that appears from my correspondence to be the single most popular option.
The debate provides a welcome opportunity for me to jump to the defence of my right hon. Friend against a wholly predictable, personalised and unnecessary attack upon his integrity. My right hon. Friend will know that I am no sycophant of Conservative Ministers. However, one reason why my right hon. Friend sometimes is accused of not being universally loved and adored by everybody in the Conservative Party is that he is intelligent, articulate, thoughtful and provocative. For all those reasons I commend my right hon. Friend to my parliamentary colleagues and to the House. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends enthusiastically to reject this unpleasant and unnecessary motion.

Mr. Clinton Davis: It is noteworthy that not one Conservative Member from London has, to use the expression of the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), jumped to the defence of the Secretary of State. We heard a speech from one of the silliest members of the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington, that well-known refugee from Bristol. We heard occasional interventions from the hon. Members for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) and Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), but London Conservative Members are significant by their absence. That is no surprise.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman has just made a personal attack. Perhaps he can explain how it was possible to fit six Members of Parliament into five Bristol constituencies after the last redistribution.

Mr. Davis: One thing is certain—the people of Bristol found it impossible to fit in the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington.
The Secretary of State decided not to answer the charge today but to brazen it out. He is an extremely conceited man. I suppose that there is an excuse for his conceit because he follows the maxim of Disraeli—that every man has the right to be conceited until he is successful. The Secretary of State has a long way to go.
In his defence today the right hon. Gentleman put up all sorts of Aunt Sallies and knocked them down but refused to answer the charge of substance against him. He failed to explain why he made the statement. He gave the convoluted excuse that he acted on the spur of the moment. One can infer from that that he made a rash reply to a question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). However, my hon. Friend completely demolished that argument in an outstanding speech in which he tore the Secretary of State's case to ribbons.
To whom did the statement apply? That is the question that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to answer. Was it simply to Sir Horace Cutler or was it to the GLC? If it was to the latter, the right hon. Gentleman does not have a leg to stand on. It was a flimsy case at best and it was utterly demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch.
What detailed investigation took place in relation to Hackney? That is the area most seriously affected. What investigation was made of the defective GLC properties in my constituency? The Secretary of State spoke of the range of areas where the Government were showing results. The fact is that he does not care a tinker's cuss about the 16,000 people on the waiting list in Hackney.

Mr. Heddle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davis: No. Other hon. Members wish to speak. I should be fair to them.
I make no apology for dealing with certain constituency matters because they are relevant. I relate my remarks only to Hackney, Central—part of Hackney as a whole. The large Trowbridge estate has been found to be structurally defective, not only its tower blocks. It is so structurally defective that the GLC chairman of the housing management committee informed me that it would cost £15 million to attempt to put right the structural defects in that single estate.
If the work goes on, what is to happen to the hundreds of people directly affected? Does that form part of the right hon. Gentleman's calculations? Are the people to be temporarily transferred? What is the cost of that? Do the figures include any compensation for the loss of quiet enjoyment of their tenancies?
It is significant that, although the Labour GLC before the last Conservative GLC gave undertakings that it would not only investigate but start work on the Trowbridge estate, nothing was done in the four years of Conservative rule. The Conservatives reneged on the promise and decided to do nothing.
However, it is not only the Trowbridge estate. There is also the Nightingale estate, another block dominated by tower blocks, where hundreds of families are living in what I can only call an environmental disaster.
Another GLC estate is the Gascoyne estate. It is now seriously contemplated that that estate will have to be demolished. Hundreds of people will be affected. In the Wyke estate further serious structural defects have been established. To its credit, the Conservative GLC took action to put that right and to compensate people. I applaud that action, and it is only fair to say so. However, there are still problems on that estate, and hundreds of people are involved. The Kingsmead estate is an area of despair for many people. I do not know how many millions of pounds it would cost to put it in order. The Morningside estate, an old estate, is another that is in substantial decay.
What guarantees do the Conservative Government give to the Hackney council that they will underwrite the costs of putting right these estates—if that is possible—in just one part of one London borough? What certainty is there that the estimate of £450 million for the eight London boroughs will be accurate? In my opinion, the eventual figure will be not double that amount, not even triple, but far in excess of even that. Morever, who will pay it? At the same time that Hackney is singled out as a spendthrift borough, the right hon. Gentleman is imposing unendurable burdens on Hackney and he continues to say that he will wash his hands of Hackney and does not care about its problems. I care about the problems, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, because we are confronted with them week after week in our surgeries and in our mailbags. The right hon. Gentleman is a disgrace to his office because he shows utter contempt for these serious, human problems.
The right hon. Gentleman's response, incidentally, when he was told about the costs of £450 million, was that it was peanuts. What about £1,000 million or £1,500 million? Will that still be peanuts? What is the reliable estimate at present? I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us a reliable estimate of the cost of dealing with the present problems in London.
The principle underlying the transfer is based on wholly bogus reasoning, and is in conflict with the Department of the Environment's own declared principles. It separates the development function from the management function. That in itself must be a rebuke to the Government's own philosophy of trying to achieve comprehensive housing authorities. That will not happen. What we shall have is a complicated structure for repairs and improvements—matters which vitally affect the tenants who should be consulted about them. Yet the Department contemplates no provision of what needs to be done, how the process will be carried out, and within what timescale.
We have witnessed a further unsavoury episode in the ministerial rake's progress of the Secretary of State. He compounds overweaning ambition with quite extraordinary arrogance and unutterable incompetence. In my view, the right hon. Gentleman has not only misled the House: he has misled his own side, and, to make matters worse, he has not even got the guts to make an apology.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: It has been said by many speakers that there is a shortage of London Members on the Conservative Benches, almost implying that we who live in or represent constituencies in the North are not entitled to be here to discuss the affairs of our capital city. My qualifications are that I stood for a London constituency at the last general election. Moreover, I was here on the earlier occasion when this subject was first argued. However, if for no other reason, I would be here to defend a Secretary of State against what I consider is an unfair, unjust and undignified attack.
This personal attack on a Secretary of State is simply a move by the Opposition to give themselves a further opportunity to debate the problems of London. It is an unworthy move. Indeed, it is a scandalous intrusion on parliamentary time to attack someone personally when that attack could have been made in letters, particularly at a time when there is so much important business that: the Opposition themselves would wish to attack.
You have grumbled and you have been unfair—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I try not to interrupt when an hon. Member says "you" once, when I think that he does not really mean me, but when he goes on saying it, I get persuaded.

Mr. Dickens: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members opposite—to whom I was alluding—have attacked the Secretary of State. That attack is unfair, because I believe that he has done more for tenants—municipal tenants, and tenants in new towns—than probably any Secretary of State in the history of Parliament.
The Government introduced the tenants' charter and we have tried to allow council tenants to buy their houses. Many council tenants—including many in Hackney to whom I have spoken, particularly elderly tenants—say, "I only wish that we had had this chance to buy our council house or flat when we were younger, because we have paid for it three or four times over." Keeping the same people over generations in a property does not release it. That is an old argument, and I shall not go into it.
I wish to compliment the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), because he does a good and dedicated job, and looks after his constituents


awfully well. Now, I draw the sword. After the letter was read by the Secretary of State, I hoped that the hon. Member would do as his brother Lord George-Brown did in another place and say that he had made a mistake. Instead of that, he entered into the attack on the Secretary of State. I believe that if we were in a court of law, the letter from Sir Horace Cutler would have led the bench to say that there was no case to answer. That is sad. I felt that the answer given on the spot—it should be remembered that it was an on-the-spot answer—was very fair. I also thought that the Secretary of State's earlier explanation of the intention of that answer was crystal clear.
I support the Secretary of State. The Opposition have been most unfair in their personal attack on a right hon. Member of the House. We on the Conservative Benches, whether we represent London or any other constituency, are entitled to be here to resist what we feel is an unfair attack on one of our Secretaries of State.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden): I bring the House back to the central issue of the debate—the contempt that has been shown by the Secretary of State over a considerable time for the whole principle of local autonomy and local democracy.
It was characteristic that in his reply to my intervention, the Secretary of State gloried in the fact that he had devoted one sentence to the issue which I regard as central—whether it is desirable for him to use his powers to transfer houses from the Greater London Council, which wishes to retain them, to a local authority which does not wish to receive them. One would think that the Secretary of State would have devoted more than one sentence to that issue. He revelled in the fact that that was all that he had said about it. The House will return to this issue of local autonomy because we know from his utterances that he is contemplating further inroads into the principle of local government democracy.
I accept that Parliament should retain control over the central direction of the economy, but that is not the issue here. It is not even the issue in most of the areas in which the Secretary of State has taken powers to override the wishes and judgment of local authorities in relation to the needs of their areas.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) made many references to the fact that some hon. Members had left the Chamber. He has now left the Chamber. He said that one of the greatest achievements of the Secretary of State was that he had enabled local authority tenants in the New Forest to buy their houses—with a view, no doubt, to selling them as second homes in five years' time, at great expense to the local community, undoubtedly to the benefit of themselves, but against the judgment of the New Forest local authority, which is under Conservative control.
I do not think that the Secretary of State would suggest that that authority was blinded by political prejudice when forming the judgment that it was unwilling to sell local authority houses because that would be contrary to the interests of the local community. The Secretary of State has overriden the judgment of that authority—albeit a Conservative authority. In the order that we are principally

debating he is overriding the judgment of both the newly-elected Greater London Council and the local authorities to which the houses are being transferred.
In my area, the Conservative-controlled Merton borough council was not unwilling to receive the houses being transferred by the GLC. There was a political affinity with the last GLC and a mutual desire to reach a satisfactory arrangement to enable a smooth transfer. The consequences of that transfer have been quite appalling. There was a long industrial dispute due to the differences between the terms of service for the staff employed by the GLC housing department and the staff employed by the Merton borough council. There were substantial changes in the levels of rents and services provided by the two authorities.
However, I accept that those problems could be overcome by good will on both sides. Nevertheless, although that good will existed, the tenants undoubtedly suffered substantially. Far worse, there were immense troubles because the GLC gave assurances that certain work would be carried out which Merton borough council did not feel it was committed to carry out. The GLC was reluctant to honour its commitment. Those difficulties arose despite the fact that both authorities wished the transfer to take place.
To contemplate the transfer of properties from the GLC, which is anxious to retain them, to a local authority which does not wish to receive them because it believes it to be more important that the GLC retains its role as a strategic housing authority, is to disregard the essential principles of local authority and the essential structure of local government, which provide for local electorates to choose a council to conduct their affairs in the way that it thinks fit.
The essential ingredient of the GLC housing stock that has proved immensely valuable—as I have repeatedly discovered during the 17 or 18 years that I have been involved in London housing—has been the opportunity for mobility within the whole of the South-East. People were able to move from Merton to Hackney, from Hackney to retirement homes on the South coast, or to GLC estates in different parts of London. That enabled families to come together and people to move because of jobs. That structure has been wilfully destroyed by Sir Horace Cutler, with the connivance of the Secretary of State. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was Secretary of State for the Environment, we accepted that it was legitimate to permit local authorities that wished to transfer properties between themselves to do so. But to impose transfers is unjustified and disgraceful.
In the Secretary of State's conclusion of his speech, characteristically not having dealt with the arguments and the criticisms directed at him, he referred to his pride in the achievements of his Department during his period of office, and to the failure of the Labour Government to carry through any satisfactory policies. While I should have preferred the Labour Government to do even more in housing, I know that throughout the years from 1975 to 1979 an average of 85,000 local authority houses were built each year.
The Secretary of State has not challenged the estimate of the Select Committee on the Environment that the probable number of starts in the public housing sector will be 31,000 in 1983–84, and lower than that in the period up to then. He has not challenged the Select Committee's


assessment that there will be a shortfall in housing stock of 500,000 homes by the end of his term of office, if he is allowed to remain in office throughout the term of this Parliament. He has given no credit to the substantial and valuable legislation introduced by the Labour Government—for example, the Rent Act 1974, which provided security for furnished tenants and prevented them from being exploited by the Rachmans who dominated that housing area, the Housing Act 1974, the Rent
(Agriculture) Act 1976—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): rose—

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I said that I would finish in two minutes. The Minister will have an opportunity to speak later.
There was also the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 which, although introduced as a Private Member's Bill, was given time by the Labour Government. It has proved to be a most valuable protection against most intense hardship. It would never have been introduced under a Conservative Government.
Above all, the Labour Government will be remembered for the continued production of houses for those who needed them. This Government will be remembered for their failure to do anything comparable. They will go out in disgrace.

Mr. Michael Latham: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), who is Chairman of the Select Committee. He knows that I have not been wholly uncritical of the Secretary of State for his responses to the Select Committee, both oral and written.
It gives me the greatest pleasure, however, to rise today to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—he has gone out again; he comes and goes like a busy little bee—was well down to his usual standard. He used his usual discreet charm when moving the motion. My right hon. Friend referred to books that had been written by the right hon. Member for Ardwick, but what about some of the books written about him—for example, a book by Mr. Joe Haynes called "The Politics of Power" about the lavender paper and the Honours List, and the whisky flowing across No. 10? That was very exciting. It is the sort of style and standard we expect from the right hon. Gentleman, and we were not disappointed today.
The conduct of my right hon. Friend during his period of office has been extremely satisfactory. I compare it with the appalling record of his predecessor. I have jotted down a few examples at random. My right hon. Friend has put enterprise zones onto the statute book. They are now working. I do not remember that being opposed by the Labour Party. I do not remember the Labour Government doing anything about enterprise zones when they were in office. I regard it as the most important planning move for many years. It has brought a great deal of hope to a great many people.
The Wildlife and Countryside Bill is currently passing through the House. I know that it is not a wholly uncontroversial Bill, but what did the Labour Government ever do about wildlife and countryside? I cannot remember any Bill on that subject being introduced by the Labour Government.
What about assured tenancies? We have not yet heard the view of the Labour Party on that. However, my right hon. Friend has put such a measure on the statute book. He created the urban development corporations. Some hon. Members are serving on them and many of them believe that they should have been set up years ago. The nettle was grasped by my right hon. Friend.
Another example is the changes that have been made by the general development order. When the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) was responsible for housing and construction he tabled an order. However, the then Labour Government did not have a majority in the House so he had to withdraw it. My right hon. Friend has put an order on the statute book and it is now operating. There have been changes that will minimise the restrictions on planning that hitherto applied to many citizens who wished to improve their houses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) referred effectively to direct labour departments. When the right hon. Members for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and Brent, East were in office they were always talking about improving the efficiency of direct labour departments but nothing ever happened. No Bills were introduced. When a proposal was put forward it had to be withdrawn because the Liberal Party would not support it. That was the end of that. It fell to my right hon. Friend to put legislation on the statute book and to frame a new and proper procedure for the regulation of direct labour departments.
A further example is land registers, to which my right hon. Friend referred in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). The 27 registers that my right hon. Friend required to be published by local authorities reveal that the 1,640 sites in the areas concerned amount to 15,249 acres. That is land owned by public authorities that should be built on It is a scandal that it was necessary for my right ion. Friend to enact legislation to get the registers drawn up. That should have been done years ago and every hon. Member knows it.
My right hon. Friend rightly took powers to require local authorities to dispose of that land if they do not do so voluntarily. I hope that he will not have to use them. I hope that the land will be disposed of voluntarily by the authorities, but I am not encouraged by their past behaviour. The land has been available for many years. It could have been disposed of voluntarily during that time. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be watching the local authorities that he listed on Friday like a hawk. If nothing happens, he can use his powers of direction to get the land on the market and some houses built upon it, or whatever is the appropriate development for the particular site.
I have given some examples of the way in which my right hon. Friend has taken specific action. His conduct has been completely satisfactory and has shown that devotion to his office which I believe him to hold. I shall give some examples of the sloth of his predecessor. When the previous Labour Government were in office the Department of the Environment had a bad record for incompetence, delay and muddle. Many hard words have been spoken in the debate, including some by Labour Members. I have no hesitation in using the words sloth, muddle and incompetence.
I shall give one or two examples. The Community Land Act 1975 was a disaster. Many Conservative Members,


including my hon. Friend the Member for Hove, (Mr. Sainsbury) and myself, sat up for many hours night after night to oppose that measure when it was passing through the House of Commons. We said that it would not work. We said that it would be a disaster. We said that it would waste money. We said that it would produce no land for building. We were right in all those respects. The Act was a waste of money, a waste of time and a waste of resources. No land was produced in the end. It was a failure. Similarly, the Land Commission, which was introduced by Richard Crossman, was in his own words "a total failure". That description or one very much like it appeared in his memoirs.
There are other examples of the conduct of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. Mr. Anthony Crosland was assisted by the right hon. Member for Ardwick between 1974 and 1975. I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying in Committee in 1975—this was his great contribution to the housing debate—that he did not mind how much he embarrassed the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. He claimed that he wanted to embarrass him as much as he could by spending as much as he could. There was a problem because he did not ask the Chancellor whether that was also his view. Along came the International Monetary Fund and the housing programme was cut. By that time the right hon. Gentleman had moved to the Department of Industry, so he was out of the way.

Mr. Tony Durant: That, too, had a bad record.

Mr. Latham: Indeed, I shall produce some more examples of the incompetence of Labour Ministers in control of the Department of the Environment. Under part IV of the Community Land Act they took power to deal with the "scandal" of empty offices. These were offices held empty by wicked speculators. Draconian powers were taken compulsorily to confiscate the empty office blocks at low prices to enable them to be let so as to deal with the "scandal".
I wonder whether the House knows how often those powers were used. The answer is that they were never used. There was a great fuss about them when they were put on the statute book. They were never used because by the time that they appeared the situation had changed and there was no great speculative threat. The time of Parliament was wasted and nothing was done subsequently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, and I had a happy time in the Committee that considered the Location of Offices Bureau in 1977. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar came forward with a new proposal. When the bureau was set up in 1963 its purpose was to get offices out of London. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that offices should be brought back into London.

Mr. Heddle: It was a U-turn.

Mr. Latham: No, it was not a U-turn. It was a V-turn or a W-turn. The right hon. Gentleman thought that he gave powers to the bureau to go to foreign countries to sell the opportunities available in London and to bring offices

into the capital. The chairman of the bureau went abroad. There were to be exhibitions and attempts to sell our office accommodation in London. I have nothing but praise for the chairman's efforts.
However, there was a problem. The statutory powers had not been drafted properly. The Department discovered to its embarrassment that there were no powers to spend money overseas and that the money had been spent illegally. It was getting around to putting that right when the Labour Government went out of office. My right hon. Friend took office and abolished the bureau. That was typical of the muddle of the previous Labour Government.
The House will remember the performance of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar and that of the right hon. Member for Ardwick on planning matters. When my right hon. Friend took office he found a pile of structure plans sitting in his in-tray. Some of them had been there for years. Between the passing of the 1968 Act and May 1979, 25 structure plans had been approved. Since May 1979 my right hon. Friend has approved 34 more structure plans. My right hon. Friend has not been prepared to do nothing while the structure plans sit in the in-tray and become mouldy. In part he reached decisions on structure plans to enable him to make progress with the planning basis for Britain. That is the decision-making that we need from him.
The previous Labour Government established many useless quangos. There was the Construction Exports Advisory Board. It met on umpteen occasions and its decisions did not amount to a row of beans. It was abolished by the same man who set it up two years after its establishment. There was the great triumph of the British Urban Development Services Unit, which was better known as BUDSU and not very well known at that. That organisation was set up by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). What a triumph it was to be. It was to be an agency of Government which, on a commercial basis, would allow us to export all our expertise in developing new towns to the Arabs, the Venezualans and heaven knows who else. There was plenty of publicity and BUDSU soon had a staff of 13. Two years later this commercial venture was abolished. It had achieved about £40,000 in revenue and had received £500,000 in expenses. That was a typical example of the efficiency, or lack of it, of my right hon. Friend's predecessors when running the Department.
From time to time hon. Members such as myself have criticised my right hon. Friend. That is what we are here for and he knows it. However, if it is a matter of comparing my right hon. Friend's conduct and his record with those of his predecessors, I have no hesitation in saying that more energy has been expended, more decisions made and more effectiveness shown in the past two years than throughout the lifetime of the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in condemning the Secretary of State's conduct. I always condemn his conduct. It is usually so appalling that as a Labour Member I should consider myself to be drawing money under false pretences if I did not condemn what he was doing. Having been at the scene of the crime, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman gave the commitment referred to. He issued no caveats at the time. They were invented afterwards and


cobbled together between the right hon. Gentleman and Sir Horace Cutler. That is only part of the contemptuous attitude that the right hon. Gentleman has displayed. That applies not only to the House but to figures generally. Indeed, there is a rumour flying about that his favourite reading is a book by Mr. Huff called "How to lie with statistics".
On the subject of the GLC, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, also seems to be afflicted with an inability to get the figures right. During environment questions recently, when he was asked a question about the number of empty dwellings held by local authorities in London, he quickly paraded the empty dwellings held by Labour boroughs. Because of his own incompetence or that of his officials, he was not able to tell the House that the GLC, under Sir Horace's command, had a total of no fewer than 6,000 properties empty at that time. Obviously the contempt for the House and the contempt for figures spread from the Secretary of State to the Under-Secretary.
What is more important is that the Secretary of State betrays a contempt for his responsibility for ordinary people, and he certainly displays a contempt for his responsibility for housing in London. He has been responsible for the absolute devastation of London's housing programme.
In 1975, there were 24,000 public sector starts in Greater London. In 1980, the first year for which the Secretary of State is really responsible, the number of starts had fallen to 4,000. The most recent set of figures that I obtained showed that the GLC's forward contribution to building new dwellings was a total of 35—not 35,000, but 35. That was the expected contribution from this great strategic housing authority.
In presenting misleading figures to the House, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) referred, when announcing the HIP allocation, the Secretary of State claimed that the cut was 15 per cent. For outer London it was 31 per cent. and for inner London 41 per cent. Secretaries of State, within your recollection Mr. Speaker, used to be judged on the extent to which they protected and looked after the services for which they were responsible. It now appears that the way to get promotion and adulation in the eyes of the Prime Minister is to be able to say at a Cabinet meeting "Please, Miss, I have devastated the housing programme" or "Please, Miss, I have devastated the education programme"—or the social services programme or the health programme or anything that gives any benefit to ordinary people.
House building figures are at their lowest, not since the Prime Minister came into office but since she was born. That shows how far housing provision has fallen under this Secretary of State and this Government.
The Secretary of State referred to other important housing measures that he had introduced. Those important measures took up one-third of the total words in his Department's response to the first report of the Select Committee on the Environment on housing expenditure. These new initiatives which the Secretary of State said were so important have produced, on the Department's own figures, 7,000 dwellings since they were introduced. To put that in perspective, I remind the House that there are about 20 million dwellings in this country. The

pathetic product of all the special measures about which the Secretary of State has boasted is 7,000 dwellings out of 20 million.
The Secretary of State also referred to the boroughs and the GLC struggling to protect their interests. It is clear that the GLC was not struggling to protect the interests of its tenants, who are the most important people. There is am estate in my constituency called the Ossulston estate, which is owned by the GLC and contains about 500 flats. Rehabilitation of that estate has been promised by the GLC for the last four years. There are more than 200 empty flats, some of which have been empty for more than three years. I am glad to say that the new GLC is starting work in rehabilitating those flats this year. The tenants there want that work done. They do not relish having, from April next year, the Camden council as their landlord and the GLC doing the building work. That is very disturbing for them.
Those tenants want better transfer arrangements than those that the Secretary of State is giving. They do not believe that the GLC will have the money to complete the work, and they are not sure that the money available will be spent on this estate. They are not sure that the necessary funds will be passed to Camden, and there is no protection for them during this transfer period.
It is clear, from a survey that has been conducted, that these tenants look forward to becoming tenants of the Camden council, much maligned though it is. They want to be real tenants of the Camden council—not, as they would be under this sloppy system, living for the next decade in a half-way house, as is envisaged in the ridiculous order that the Secretary of State still defends.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I start by reminding the House what the debate is about. We are not, as some Government Members would have us believe, debating my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). What we are debating and what Members on the Conservative Benches are anxious to divert attention from—I cannot say that I blame them—is
the conduct of the Secretary of State for the Environment",
who is no longer present.
In particular, we are debating the right hon. Gentleman's conduct towards the House, the latest example of his failure to honour an undertaking to the House in respect of the compulsory transfer of GLC dwellings. This debate could, of course, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, have been wide-ranging. After all, there are many areas in which the Secretary of State's conduct has been such as to justify a censure motion.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) mentioned the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. He mentioned it with pride, but that is one area where the Secretary of State has so mismanaged the business of the House as to offend everyone and make the Bill virtually worthless.
We could justifiably have concentrated on many aspects of the Secretary of State's policies. We could have concentrated on house building levels, the Government's rent policy or the Secretary of State's attack on the principle of local government itself, an attack which is alarming even Tory county councillors, who have not formed themselves into a so-called "Suffolk group" to defend themselves against the Secretary of State.
The fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick chose to concentrate his remarks on the compulsory transfer of houses is not because we are not censorious of the Secretary of State's other conduct but because the Secretary of State's contempt of the House on his matter has been even more blatant than usual.
When the Secretary of State spoke earlier today, in an extraordinary speech, he proved the point of this motion. He proved that he does not care about the issues for which he has responsibility. We are not criticising the Secretary of State simply for forcing the transfer of houses from an unwilling donor to an unwilling recipient. We are not criticising him simply for failing to give guarantees to the GLC that even the previous Conservative majority in County Hall demanded. We are not criticising him simply for attacking the role of the GLC as a housing authority, ignoring its important strategic role, particularly on mobility.
As well as those important and legitimate criticisms, and the fact that again the Secretary of State is trying to say that he knows better than anyone else and has no faith in local government, there is the point raised earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick, which was not satisfactorily answered by the Secretary of State—the way in which he is willing to do favours for his political cronies and the way in which he has tried to mislead the House.
The Secretary of State was anxious to make light of the problem. He claimed that the row was a storm in a teacup and that the transfer of these houses was no different from all the other transfers that have taken place. He gave us a mini-history lesson and argued that there had been a bipartisan policy on transfers. In particular, he mentioned the other orders that have gone ahead.
It is true that in 1974 the Labour Party considered a policy of transfers and worked out a package whereby voluntary transfers might be possible if other items were included in the package. For example, voluntary transfers might be possible if targets on house building in London were met and if targets on home improvements in London were met. The package was important because over the last few years, with the Conservatives in control at County Hall, those other targets have not been met. When we talked about voluntary transfers, council house building in London was running at 21,000 houses a year compared with 5,000 last year. Had the Tories at County Hall continued to build homes, this transfer would not have had such serious effects as it is having now.
The Secretary of State insisted earlier on putting this order in the same category as all the others before. It is simply not true to say that it is the same. Which other order involves compulsion? The answer is "None". This is the only one, and it involves compulsion from the Secretary of State to both sides. He is forcing the GLC to relinquish those houses and he is forcing the boroughs to accept them. That has never happened before. So much for his claim that these orders are like all the others and so much for his claim that he believes in the rights of local government.
The debate raises some serious matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick raised some fundamental housing points which the Secretary of State chose not to answer. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will at least try to give us some answers to some of those points, because there is an unsatisfactory position.
The houses which are being compulsorily transferred are going ahead when proper arrangements have not yet

been made to guarantee the GLC sufficient funds to carry out the work and the commitments which are required. I ask the Minister whether he will give an assurance—for what his assurances are worth—that sufficient funds will be available, because both the present and the previous administrations at County Hall agree that the Government have refused to give the essential guarantees.
It is no use the Secretary of State coming to the House today and waving a piece of paper from Sir Horace Cutler saying that he was satisfied with the terms of the agreement. He cannot use a letter which Sir Horace Cutler wrote after the local elections and after he had ceased to be leader which says that he was satisfied.
I believe that we would be wiser to rely on the information of the comptroller of finance at County Hall, who, as my right hon. Friend said, says that the Tory council decided on the transfer of housing stock but did not formally support the final terms of the order. The Secretary of State tried to say that when Sir Horace Cutler had been arguing about terms, he was arguing as part of the negotiating procedure. This minute and this statement refer to the final terms. I believe that Sir Horace is indulging in one of the Secretary of State's favourite tricks of rewriting history, as we heard earlier today.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will say something about the houses which have been transferred under voluntary arrangements. It is true that those houses will not enjoy the priority claim on the GLC housing funds, as they are not subject to the same agreement on repairs. As the Secretary of State is reducing the funds available for housing, their chances of reaching a satisfactory condition are diminishing further every time the Minister announces another housing cut, which seems to be frequently.
I hope that the Minister will also deal with the fundamental problem of what the Secretary of State was saying on 31 March. The Secretary of State mentioned that earlier. All that he said in giving what I believe is his fourth version of the events did not clarify the issue; it merely confused it further. One thing which we can be sure of—I do not believe that even the Secretary of State would doubt it on this occasion—is what Hansard actually says. It states that the Secretary of State said:
If Sir Horace should ask me to withdraw this compulsory order, I should, of course, be prepared to do so."—[Official Report, 31 March 1981; Vol. 2, c. 157.]
No one doubts that that is what the Secretary of State said—an offer was made.
What is still not clear is to whom the Secretary of State was making the offer. Was he making the offer to the leader of the GLC, who happened to be Sir Horace Cutler, or was he making the offer to Sir Horace Cutler, who happened to be the leader of the GLC? If he was making it to the leader of the GLC, surely the offer must still stand. However, the Secretary of State has told us that the offer does not stand. Therefore, the offer must have been made to Sir Horace Cutler personally and not because he was leader of the GLC.
The House has a right to know on what grounds the Secretary of State intends to make policy at the request of one individual. What the Secretary of State meant was that he would accept a request from a Conservative leader but not from a Labour leader. I cannot see why he cannot admit that tonight.
That interpretation is confirmed by what the Secretary of State said later on 31 March in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr.


Fraser). He asked the Secretary of State whether that offer would still hold good after the local elections on 6 May. The Secretary of State did not say that an offer had not been made but said that the House should wait and see what happened before making forecasts about the policies which would be pursued.
We have conclusive proof that the Secretary of State was acting in a political way. He has looked at the transfer of houses only from a political viewpoint. One thing is clear. He has not looked at the problem in the context of the housing needs of London. He has not considered the problem of mobility and the failure of the Tory GLC's mobility scheme. It is incredible that, given all the housing problems in London, the Secretary of State can concentrate his attention only on transferring houses compulsorily from the GLC to the London boroughs.
One of the few logical explanations for the Secretary of State's behaviour is that perhaps he thinks that the issue is a useful diversion to distract attention from the main problems. It is clear that he does not like talking about the main problems of London.

Mr. Adley: I have listened to most of the debate, in which convoluted charges have been going back and forth. What is the alleged advantage to the Conservative Party if my right hon. Friend had done what the hon. Lady accuses him of doing?

Mrs. Taylor: Some of us are suspicious of the ultimate aim of the Minister and whether the Government wish the GLC to remain a housing authority at all. Many claims have been made by Conservatives that the GLC should cease to be a housing authority. Some have said that the GLC should cease to exist. I believe that the Secretary of State is moving in that direction.
It is a useful diversionary tactic for the Secretary of State if he can create a row about this matter so that he does not have to talk—

Mr. Heseltine: I am not doing anything.

Mrs. Taylor: That is right. It is because the Secretary of State is doing nothing constructive that he has to divert attention and fiddle while other problems arise.
The Secretary of State does not want to take notice of the fact that 242,000 people are on the waiting list in London. Those are up-to-date figures. Waiting lists are increasing by 20 per cent. a year. The Secretary of State does not want to realise that more than 100,000 new applicants come on to waiting lists every year because his Government are not providing housing in London.
Waiting lists are now getting longer, and new applications are increasing. But, not content with selling off council houses, thereby reducing the chances of those on the waiting lists, the Government have savaged spending on housing in London. They have cut the GLC's housing investment programme from £182 million in 1980–81 to £95 million in 1981–82—less than half what the Tory GLC thought was necessary. The London boroughs have suffered in the same way.
The result is that council house building in London has virtually stopped. This year, when there are nearly 250,000 people on the waiting lists and more than 100,000 new applications for council houses, only about 2,000 public sector houses will be started in London. That compares with a figure of 15,000 public sector starts in the

worst year when Labour was in Government. It is no wonder that the Secretary of State tries to divert attention from that problem, because he is doing nothing about it.
The right hon. Gentleman's priorities are very clear. His policy is quite straightforward. He will sell and transfer council houses, but he will not build them. By concentrating his attention on those, the right hon. Gentleman is creating more problems for the people of London. We are concerned about the length of waiting lists in London and about the lack of council house building. The right hon. Gentleman should show some concern about those problems as well. Instead, he is diverting attention from them by selling and transferring council houses. We want him to build council houses, which is why we condemn him tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I can sum up most of the Opposition speeches with the words "Do not confuse us with facts. Leave us to our assertions." The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) decided not to hear my right hon. Friend say categorically that this order was different because it was not voluntary. He said that firmly. The hon. Lady did not bother to listen, and the rest of what she said compounded the fact that she did not take the trouble to listen to what my right hon. Friend said very clearly on more than one occasion.
I cannot remember a more feeble or futile way in which the Opposition have used their time. The debate started with the well-known gramophone record of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), with his attack on the HIP figures. He knows full well that he was wrong then and that he is wrong now. He does not, or cannot, understand that capital receipts play a part in the HIP figures. Since he is fundamentally wedded to opposing the rights of tenants, and for tactical reasons, he ignores these facts whenever he puts a charge to my right hon. Friend.
Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition could not even put his name to the usual form of motion to reduce my right hon. Friend's salary. At least that might have attracted some pure monetarists on the Conservative Benches with the chance to save money. Instead, the Opposition have tried this rather foolish tactic which in racing terms I would describe as a sham, by malice out of ignorance.
Let me demonstrate each of those words. It is a sham because the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have at least made clear that the issue of transfers, which is apparently of such importance, has been submerged in a welter of political accusations. As my right hon. Friend said, it was to mask the fact that the last Government did precisely nothing in the housing sector—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, they did. They cut the capital allocation available at the behest of the IMF.
The Opposition have displayed against my right hon. Friend deep malice which is wholly undeserved. Had he been politically motivated--and on this issue there are plenty of opportunities to be politically motivated—which he was not, he would not have taken 10 months to reach his decision. There was massive consultation on the terms.
The House should not take that assurance from me. It should take it from the GLC minutes signed by Gladys Dimson—who for her is in pretty mucky company—Tony Hart and John Carr, which states:


Nevertheless, following an intensive period of consultation with the eight boroughs".
That gives the lie to all that has been said about rushed consultations.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman read out the two preceding and two succeeding sentences as well?

Mr. Finsberg: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was listening. However, I was refuting the charge about consultation. If I wished, I could read the full text of Sir Horace's letter, but I do not propose to do that yet again. The object of the debate has been to denigrate my right hon. Friend and to impugn his honour. You, Mr. Speaker, have not been unfortunate enough to be here all the time, but in the limited time that you have been present—of course, Mr. Speaker is deaf to these matters—the House knows that that attempt has not been successful.
The reason is quite simple. The right hon. Member for Ardwick and his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West do not understand London. They are part of Labour's North-West mafia, which operated against London in the last two Labour Governments. Labour Members who interrupted to say that few London Conservative Members were present did not need an answer, because the charge was made by Mancunians and Lancastrians.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) is on the Opposition Front Bench. The Opposition dare not let him loose, because he is an exceptionally honourable man. If I have harmed the hon. Gentleman in his selection process, I apologise, but I shall continue to pay him tribute as an honourable Right-wing member of the Labour Party.
Both today and in the last few months the right hon. Member for Ardwick has sought to stake his claim for a humble—if I dare use that word about him—place in the new hierarchy of Socialism. If he understood London, he would know that away from the public platform most political figures believe in the borough structure which the Herbert report urged, and few have a good word for the housing management of the GLC under whichever political control.
The third leg of my charge was that of ignorance, and that is the easiest charge to prove. The right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend of not honouring his word when he said on 31 March that if Sir Horace asked him to withdraw the order, he would. Between 31 March and 1 May Sir Horace did not, and from the letter of 22 May it was quite clear that he never intended so to do.
Labour Members make much of letters written by servants of the GLC. That may be GLC policy under Labour. Under the Conservatives, officials carry out elected members'policies. That was part of a negotiating process. Few Opposition Members have had the opportunity of being in commerce and negotiating. They may negotiate the block vote, which is the antithesis of democracy, but they do not understand the process of democracy. Even an elementary knowledge of parliamentary procedure would have helped the Opposition to understand that what they were asking for was no longer possible after the order came into effect.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister said that what we were seeking was not possible after the order came into effect. What would be the Minister's reaction to a new joint

application from the GLC and the London boroughs for an annulment of the order, or for a new order to reverse its procedures, if not on houses at least on land?

Mr. Finsberg: I do not propose to indulge in hypothetical considerations.
There is one angle that is far more important than any we have so far discussed. There are few in the House who will disagree that the tenants are very important in this issue. By that I mean the actual tenants, not the London-wide organisation which is political and unrepresentative. On this issue I am not concerned with the views of Labour Members of Parliament, Labour councillors or Labour county councillors—views which ossified in 1964.
One London borough sought the views of the GLC tenants within its area. That was Camden in June 1978. Of those who voted, 67 per cent. were in favour of transfer to Camden. On the Ossulston estate mentioned by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), 184 voted in favour and 62 against.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Finsberg: No. I quote from page 94 of "How to be a Minister":
Always give way to interventions early on in your speech. This will enable you to refuse to do so later on.
I have given way three times.

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Finsberg: I accept the advice of the master whose book I not only borrowed from the Library but actually purchased. To the author I give way.

Mr. Kaufman: I hope, since both the Minister and the Secretary of State have quoted from my book, that they bought separate copies.

Mr. Finsberg: I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend. I will use all my power to persuade him to purchase it.
Whose bright idea was it to poll the tenants of Camden? It was the idea of the chairman of Camden housing committee, a certain Councillor Kenneth Livingstone. The Labour Party does not warn its Front Bench of the facts. What did this certain Councillor Livingstone do? He moved his office into the housing department to take over full-time direction of policy. The report containing the wishes of the tenants hardly saw the light of day, because the tenants gave an answer that was wholly different from what he expected.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Finsberg: It was under the chairmanship—

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister's description of what happened on this occasion is misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The argument about misleading the House could be advanced by the hon. Member if he were speaking after the Minister; it is not a point of order.

Mr. Finsberg: It was under the chairmanship of Councillor Kenneth Livingstone that Camden's stock of empty properties started to climb to its present level of between 2,000 and 3,000. That started long before any financial cuts by the Conservative Government. He was so incompetent that his colleagues did not keep him as chairman of the housing committee.
I suggest that this debate has never been seriously pursued by the Opposition. It is part of a sustained


campaign against my right hon. Friend just because he runs rings round them time and again. I am proud to serve as a member of his team.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) is normally a very nice chap but he got it wrong, perhaps because he is no longer on the Front Bench.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: He is.

Mr. Finsberg: He is no longer a senior member of the Front Bench. It changes so quickly.
The Opposition prayed against the order but withdrew the prayer five weeks later to adopt a dirtier approach. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East said that my departmental officials say that the mobility scheme is inadequate. My officials follow ministerial policy, and Ministers do not take that view.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) spoke of the condition of properties in Hackney. The survey was taken on the basis of 765 dwellings in Hackney. I cannot split the survey between the two parts of Hackney. It represents 8 per cent. of repairs costing more than £3,000, amounting to £8·1 million, and 92 per cent. required repairs costing less than £3,000, amounting to £13·8 million. That total is well within the figures we have spoken of. Having answered the hon. Gentleman, I believe that far from deserving censure, my right hon. Friend deserves approbation.

Mr. Moyle: rose—

Mr. Clinton Davis: rose—

Mr. Finsberg: I ask the House not merely to reject the motion—

Mr. Moyle: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Finsberg: I hope that the House will reject the motion, not merely with the contempt it deserves but with derision—

Mr. Moyle: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Finsberg: —for the sort of case that has been brought forward. The Opposition have huffed and puffed. They have failed to make any case against my right hon. Friend. They do not like my right hon. Friend because he hits them where it hurts politically. They sit there, hoping to find ways to trip him up.
What has happened today is clear. My right hon. Friend began the debate for the Government side by exposing the weaknesses of the Opposition. I believe that the House will wish to reject the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 311.

Division No. 235]
[3.43 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Allaun, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Ashton, Joe
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
McTaggart, Robert


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Marks, Kenneth


Buchan, Norman
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; p)
Meacher, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Canavan, Dennis
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Carmichael, Neil
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Morton, George


Cryer, Bob
Park, George


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Prescott, John


Dempsey, James
Race, Reg


Dixon, Donald
Radice, Giles


Dubs, Alfred
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Eadie, Alex
Sheerman, Barry


Eastham, Ken
Short, Mrs Renée


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Soley, Clive


Evans, John (Newton)
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Spriggs, Leslie


Forrester, John
Stoddart, David


Foster, Derek
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Foulkes, George
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Graham, Ted
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Winnick, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Woodall, Alec


Haynes, Frank
Woolmer, Kenneth


Homewood, William
Wright, Sheila


Hooley, Frank
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Ernie Ross and


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. William McKelvey.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard


Aitken, Jonathan
Brinton, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Hon Peter


Ancram, Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Buck, Antony


Banks, Robert
Budgen, Nick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Chapman, Sydney


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Blackburn, John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Body, Richard
Clegg, Sir Walter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cockeram, Eric


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Colvin, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Cope, John




Costain, Sir Albert
Mellor, David


Crouch, David
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Dewar, Donald
Moate, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Molyneaux, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Montgomery, Fergus


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Morgan, Geraint


Durant, Tony
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Dykes, Hugh
Myles, David


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Neubert, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Newton, Tony


Eyre, Reginald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Onslow, Cranley


Fairgrieve, Russell
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Fell, Anthony
Pawsey, James


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Percival, Sir Ian


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Pollock, Alexander


Fookes, Miss Janet
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Forman, Nigel
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Freud, Clement
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rathbone, Tim


Glyn, Dr Alan
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Rhodes James, Robert


Goodlad, Alastair
Rifkind, Malcolm


Gow, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Grist, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Shersby, Michael


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Silvester, Fred


Hawkins, Paul
Sims, Roger


Hayhoe, Barney
Skeet, T. H. H.


Heddle, John
Speed, Keith


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Speller, Tony


Hicks, Robert
Spence, John


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Squire, Robin


Howells, Geraint
Stanbrook, Ivor


Janner, Hon Greville
Stanley, John


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stevens, Martin


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Lang, Ian
Stokes, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Latham, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Donald


Le Marchant, Spencer
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ward, John


Loveridge, John
Wheeler, John


McCrindle, Robert
Whitney, Raymond


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Winterton, Nicholas


McQuarrie, Albert



Madel, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Mather, Carol
Mr. Den Dover and


Mawby, Ray
Mr. Christopher Murphy.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Division No. 236]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Adams, Allen
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Allaun, Frank
Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Buchan, Norman


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Bidwell, Sydney
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)





Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Hon Greville


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Carmichael, Neil
John, Brynmor


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Craigen, J. M.
Kerr, Russell


Crowther, J. S.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Leighton, Ronald


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Deakins, Eric
McElhone, Frank


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McKelvey, William


Dempsey, James
McMahon, Andrew


Dewar, Donald
McNally, Thomas


Dixon, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
McTaggart, Robert


Dormand, Jack
McWilliam, John


Douglas, Dick
Magee, Bryan


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dunnett, Jack
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Eadie, Alex
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Meacher, Michael


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Fitch, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Newens, Stanley


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ogden, Eric


Ford, Ben
O'Halloran, Michael


Forrester, John
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Palmer, Arthur


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Park, George


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Parker, John


Freud, Clement
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Prescott, John


Ginsburg, David
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Golding, John
Race, Reg


Graham, Ted
Radice, Giles


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Richardson, Jo


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Haynes, Frank
Robertson, George


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, J. W.


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Roper, John


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Homewood, William
Ryman, John


Hooley, Frank
Sever, John


Huckfield, Les
Sheerman, Barry


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.






Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Torney, Tom


Short, Mrs Renée
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Silverman, Julius
Watkins, David


Skinner, Dennis
Wellbeloved, James


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Welsh, Michael


Snape, Peter
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Soley, Clive
Whitlock, William


Spearing, Nigel
Wigley, Dafydd


Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Stoddart, David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Stott, Roger
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Strang, Gavin
Winnick, David


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Woodall, Alec


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wright, Sheila


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)



Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. George Morton and


Tilley, John
Mr. Allen McKay.


Tinn, James





NOES


Adley, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, John


Alexander, Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Alton, David
Corrie, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Costain, Sir Albert


Ancram, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount


Arnold, Tom
Critchley, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Crouch, David


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dover, Denshore


Bendall, Vivian
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Durant, Tony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Eggar, Tim


Blackburn, John
Elliott, Sir William


Blaker, Peter
Eyre, Reginald


Body, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairgrieve, Russell


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Farr, John


Bowden, Andrew
Fell, Anthony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brinton, Tim
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Brittan, Leon
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brotherton, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fox, Marcus


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Buck, Antony
Fry, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodhart, Philip


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Goodhew, Victor


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Goodlad, Alastair


Chapman, Sydney
Gorst, John


Churchill, W. S.
Gow, Ian


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Greenway, Harry


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Cockeram, Eric
Grimond, Rt Hon J.





Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Fergus


Hannam, John
Morgan, Geraint


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mudd, David


Hawksley, Warren
Murphy, Christopher


Hayhoe, Barney
Myles, David


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neale, Gerrard


Heddle, John
Needham, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hicks, Robert
Newton, Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Normanton, Tom


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Onslow, Cranley


Hooson, Tom
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Parris, Matthew


Howells, Geraint
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pawsey, James


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Percival, Sir Ian


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Porter, Barry


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, Rt Hon James


Kimball, Marcus
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Rt Hon Tom
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Knight, Mrs Jill
Raison, Timothy


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Lang, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Tim


Latham, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lee, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Loveridge, John
Rossi, Hugh


Luce, Richard
Rost, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Royle, Sir Anthony


McCrindle, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Macfarlane, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


MacGregor, John
Scott, Nicholas


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Richard


Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Major, John
Silvester, Fred


Marland, Paul
Sims, Roger


Marlow, Tony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Speller, Tony


Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Mawby, Ray
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sproat, Iain


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Squire, Robin


Mayhew, Patrick
Stainton, Keith


Mellor, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanley, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Steen, Anthony






Stevens, Martin
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Stokes, John
Waller, Gary


Stradling Thomas, J.
Walters, Dennis


Tapsell, Peter
Ward, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Warren, Kenneth


Tebbit, Norman
Watson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wells, Bowen


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Donald
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Whitney, Raymond


Thornton, Malcolm
Wickenden, Keith


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wiggin, Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Trippier, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wainwright, R. (Colne V)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Wakeham, John
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) ACT I977

'It shall not be competent for a housing authority to refuse to class a non-entitled spouse as homeless for the purposes of section 1 of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 solely on the grounds that he or she has failed to enforce his or her rights under this Act, nor shall a housing authority hold a non-entitled spouse to be intentionally homeless because of such failure.'.—[Mr. Dewar.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.13 pm

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with the impact of the legislation in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. It is a matter of real importance and something that we touched on in Committee, although it was not debated at any great length. The Under-Secretary of State will be the first to agree that there is a real social problem with the adult single homeless in Scotland. It is one which causes considerable anxiety to a number of organisations that have special responsibility for housing in Scotland.
Before I come to the details of the new clause, I invite the Under-Secretary to say a word or two in his reply about the impact of the legislation on the number of single homeless adults in Scotland. As he will be aware, under the 1977 Act a general duty is laid on local authorities to deal with homelessness, but, unless a person falls into one of the priority categories, it is difficult for them to get satisfactory housing in many local authority areas.
The record of local authorities varies greatly. Some attempt honourably to address themselves to the problem. I am told by interested groups that my district council of Glasgow takes a sympathetic view and makes a particular effort to deal with the problems of single adults in hostels and lodging houses. However, there is a substantial and continuing problem. The provision of one-apartment and two-apartment accommodation in Scotland, which is particularly suitable for the adult single homeless, is totally inadequate and is likely to become less adequate as the years go by if the housing policy of this Administration is followed to its conclusion, as foreshadowed in the White Paper on public expenditure up to 1984.
A code has been issued to local authorities by the Scottish Office, somewhat reluctantly and late in the day, but the guidance is not adequate on this issue. The Under-Secretary is looking deeply offended, and I always hesitate to offend him. If there is difficulty about dealing with the adult single homeless, perhaps he will consider whether more guidance to local authorities would be welcome.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I looked offended because the hon. Gentleman had the nerve to suggest that the Government produced the guidance code reluctantly. The Labour Government consistently declined to issue a code, even though they were asked by almost everyone. As soon as we came to office we said that we intended to provide a code, and the fact that we did so was warmly welcomed.

Mr. Dewar: That may be the hon. Gentleman's gloss on the circumstances, and I shall not argue the toss with him.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should ask his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Dewar: I constantly ask my hon. Friend for advice and help and shall continue to do so.
It has been represented most forcefully to me that there is a problem about the single adult homeless, and perhaps the Minister will say a word about that in his reply.
The intent of the new clause is clear, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House. It seeks to guard against a situation in which a non-entitled spouse—in the most likely scenario a wife—does not wish to go to the courts to enforce her rights of occupancy under the 1977 Act. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the matrimonial home is a council house of which the husband is the sole tenant. Perhaps there is no family. Let us assume that the wife does not wish to ask under clause 13 for an order transferring the tenancy to her. It would, therefore, be conceivable that the local authority may take the view that she had failed to enforce her rights and was to that extent intentionally homeless. As the Minister is aware, if a person is classed as intentionally homeless, any chance of being given priority under the 1977 Act comes to a sharp end.
The Minister may say that the new clause is unnecessary. Is he satisfied that the failure to go to the courts and attempt to implement an occupancy right will not give local authorities the opportunity to class a non-entitled spouse as intentionally homeless? To be more positive, will the Minister confirm that a person is homeless even if he or she does not attempt to enforce the rights in the way that I have described? If he cannot give that confirmation, the new clause must be necessary.
I recognise that many local authorities are making honest efforts to meet the requirements of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. I also recognise that many of them face great difficulty because of a lack of resources and of accommodation. However, in the areas where the approach has been less flexible, it would be tragic if a failure to go for a section 13 order or if a failure, in other circumstances, to go for a declarator of occupancy under section 3 were to allow an intentionally homeless classification to be made. It would be equally tragic if the person in question did not qualify as homeless under the 1977 Act. That would be a sad and unintended consequence. New clause 2 has been tabled to meet that situation.

Dame Judith Hart: I am concerned that the purpose of the new clause should be met. As the Minister knows, I had discussions with him as a result of my anxiety about the Bill's consequences. Although I did not serve on the Committee, my anxiety has been reinforced since then by what was said there. Tonight the Minister must give us a complete reassurance. If he does not do so, we must ask him to accept the new clause.
I think that the Minister knows the reason for my concern. The Bill sets out to take good and creditable legal steps to protect the victims of matrimonial disputes. Some years ago I was deeply concerned about what would happen if a marriage broke up, for one reason or another, and if one partner, together with the children—that partner is usually the woman, although the children are important

factors—was displaced from the family home. I was particularly concerned about the cases that can be more easily controlled—those involving council dwellings. Inquiries were made all over Scotland. The answer to my inquiries was that there was a tremendous mix among housing authorities. More recent information shows that there is still a tremendous mix. Some authorities refuse to rehouse a separated spouse, even though the spouse—usually the woman—has the children, until proceedings for judicial separation or divorce have taken place. That means a delay of a couple of years.
Let us suppose that the spouse with the children is the woman. Indeed, that is usually the case. During that time, the wife and children have to go from pillar to post, living in rooms, lodgings or with relatives. They must carry on doing that until court proceedings are satisfactorily completed. However, some authorities are infinitely more flexible and have a much better attitude. I am happy to say that my authority, Clydesdale, is numbered among them. That may be partly due to the fact that about six years ago I had a full discussion with the authority on this issue. There is no system and one cannot attach labels. That is one of the problems. Legislation cannot systemise matters entirely. One must assume an enlightened approach to the administration of housing allocation.
In my local authority the spouse with the children is housed if the marriage breaks up. The question of who is entitled to the original council house is resolved later. I do not want a local authority's discretion to ensure that the separated spouse and children are rehoused held up merely because the less progressive housing authorities think that they have had reinforced their belief that court proceedings must take place. That is my concern.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that a separated spouse with children will not be less likely to be administratively rehoused by the housing authority as a result of the Bill. Despite the Bill's good provisions, it may be argued that everything should go to the courts first. I am concerned about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) highlighted that concern in his remarks. I saw and heard what happened in Committee. As a result, I have spoken in today's debate. I should have thought that a complete reassurance would have been given in Committee. As good provisions are being introduced to give legal rights to spouses, I hope that the Bill will not reinforce the reactionary tendencies of some housing authorities. Sadly, some of those authorities still tend to ask themselves which one is the guilty partner. They do not recognise that it is the children who matter. The spouse with the children must be immediately rehoused.
In the more reactionary authorities, demands are made for refuges for battered wives. My constituency does not have such a refuge because we do not need one. In my constituency, a battered wife with children would be rehoused by the local authority. Women's refuges are needed only in reactionary housing authorities. They do not take our liberated, sensible and enlightened approach. I wish to ensure that, although the Bill provides legal safeguards and new provisions, the Government will not discourage housing authorities from taking administrative action to resolve the problem. I hope that the Government will continue to guide housing authorities—as the original guidance of a year or so ago did—about meeting the problem with their own administrative solutions, regardless of whether a non-entitled spouse seeks to go to


the courts. The courts must not stand in the way of liberal, administrative arrangements. I want an assurance that that will not happen.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I had fully expected the Under-Secretary of State to rise to give the reassurance which my hen. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) sought. I had thought that he would rise immediately to give a positive answer to my hon. Friend. The fact that he did not do so shows that he intends to oppose the new clause or that he will say that there is no necessity—

Mr. Rifkind: The fact is that the right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) wished to speak. It is normal procedure, when Back Benchers wish to speak, for the Minister to wait until the debate has concluded before replying.

Dr. Miller: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman had been discourteous. It is, however, also usual for a Minister to say immediately that a proposal is good and that he accepts it. That eliminates the necessity for further argument. The fact that the hon. Gentleman did not follow that course might suggest that he opposes what my hon. Friend requests. I support wholeheartedly the remarks of my hon. Friend and also those of my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart).
The provisions for those categorised as homeless are bad enough now. I have no doubt that many of my hon. Friends, like me, are aware of cases where the spouse, who is usually woman—my right hon. Friend should not have been reticent in saying that it is usually the woman who is the sufferer—is pushed into inferior accommodation. The Bill contains some excellent provisions. I would not like the non-entitled spouse to be deprived of rights that are at the moment far from satisfactory. I shall not follow my right hon. Friend along the track of saving that it is always reactionary or non-progressive local authorities that need accommodation for battered wives. Sometimes a wife needs immediate succour. Sometimes it is necessary to set up a house or a home for that purpose.
I want an assurance from the Minister that the spouse who is involved in an unfortunate circumstance—an altercation or a dispute between husband and wife which will have serious consequences—should have an automatic right to be rehoused. It is not even going far enough to say that the housing authority shall
hold a non-entitled spouse to be intentionally homeless because of such failure".
I would like to see spelt out an extra obligation upon local authorities to ensure that the non-entitled spouse is rehoused. In saying "rehoused", I do not merely mean inferior accommodation to which a woman often has to take children for several months. I should like the Minister to state clearly that local authorities will be able to follow some guidelines or a code to satisfy what has been sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, so ably supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: This is, I am sure, a matter of great interest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you and I will never forget the famous words "intentionally homeless". My hon. Friend the

Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has no need to feel on the defensive or apologetic about the fact that the previous Labour Government did not produce a code of practice. Unlike the lot now in power, we tried 1:0 get the agreement of the local authorities and the local authority associations. I regret to advise the House that the failure of housing and social work sub-committees of COSLA to agree in an informal discussion, designed to take people along with Government policies rather than simply putting the boot in, accounted for the fact that it was not possible to produce an agreed code of conduct.
The Minister, to whom I always pay great tribute—not for his knowledge but for his debating skill—has done the cheap thing again. I did not serve on the Committee. I hazard a guess that practical problems could arise from the definition of someone who is intentionally homeless. However, there would surely be an obligation in the type of case mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart), and my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) to rehouse a woman with children in her care if she was unable to get back into the matrimonial home or did not want to go back. Surely, in those circumstances, there would be an obligation. I think I am right in recalling that violence or the threat of violence by a partner was a legitimate ground for being declared homeless. I should like to hear what the Minister says.
I should like to know whether there have been consultations. It is no secret that when the previous Labour Government were in office the majority of authorities were controlled either by the Conservative Party or by the SNP. I have stated regularly that some Labour colleagues in local government were not the best in dealing with some sensitive issues. However, tremendous strides have been made in the past four years as a result of the Act covering homelessness. I hope that, in the spirit generated by that legislation, no great problem will arise in getting authorities to deal with the natural concern expressed in new clause 2.

Mr. Rifkind: I can give the right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) the assurance that she sought. There is nothing in the Bill that is intended to remove or reduce the normal responsibilities of local authorities to provide for homeless persons within their own area. I would share the right hon. Lady's concern if am, local authority indicated that a contrary view was appropriate.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) has said all that needs to be stated about the new clause. It is clearly intended to ensure that, when a non-entitled spouse for some reason did not wish to pursue a potential occupancy right, this should not be a ground for the local authority refusing to treat the non-entitled spouse, normally the wife, as homeless. For the reasons the hon. Gentleman indicated, that course would not be open to the local authority, given the situation that would clearly have arisen in these circumstances.
We are talking about a situation where a marriage has broken up and where, as a consequence, the parties have separated. Normally, the wife has left the matrimonial home either with the children or by herself, depending on the circumstances. In many cases, there will be violence or the threat of violence, which will undoubtedly be a deterrent to the non-entitled spouse wishing to resume


occupation in the matrimonial home, certainly at a stage where it would not be certain by any means that an exclusion order might be available under the clause.
Although this Bill was not being considered at the time, these matters were very much taken on board when the code of guidance was provided to local authorities. As the House will be aware, the code of guidance has been widely welcomed not only by the local authorities but also by organisations such as Shelter, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless and other bodies that take a special interest in these matters.
As far as we are aware, the code is working well and provides not only a basis for local authorities to apply the purpose of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act but a welcome uniformity among local authorities, thereby reducing considerably the annoying anomalies and distinctions between one local authority and another about how they previously interpreted the Act. It was for that reason that a code was sought and was welcome once it was published.
Local authorities are now looking to the code to determine whether a person should be classed as homeless and whether the criterion of intentional homelessness has been met. Parts of the existing code more than meet the points that the Opposition have raised as matters of concern. Where the code deals with priority need, it says:
In particular, the Secretary of State considers that it would be appropriate under this heading for authorities to secure that, whenever possible, accommodation is available for battered women without children who are at risk of violent pursuit or, if they return home, at risk of further violence.
In dealing with intentional homelessness—this is relevant to the new clause—the code says:
In the opinion of the Secretary of State, a victim of domestic violence who has fled the marital home should never be regarded as having become homeless intentionally because it clearly would not be reasonable for her to remain.
That is on all fours with the circumstances suggested.
On the same page, the code continues:
In general, authorities should not treat as intentionally homeless those who have been driven to leave their accommodation because conditions had degenerated to a point where they could not in all the circumstances have been reasonably expected to remain.
On page 16 the code states:
Authorities should not, however, put pressure on people to return to shared accommodation where this would cause real distress, in particular where a person is seeking refuge because of a genuine fear of violence from another member of the household and there will be an immediate need for alternative accommodation.
Those are the sort of circumstances that cause concern to the hon. Gentlemen and the right hon. Lady. I hope that the extracts that I have quoted from the code will assure her and other hon. Members that the code, which will remain relevant once the Bill becomes law, will be clear advice to local authorities of the proper interpretation of the 1977 Act.

Dame Judith Hart: In his last couple of sentences the Minister has more or less reassured me. What I want is clear confirmation that there is nothing in the Bill which reduces the importance of the advice given in the code of guidance in terms of the administrative capabilities of housing authorities.

Mr. Rifkind: As far as I am aware, nothing in the Bill reduces the effectiveness of the code. We are continually

monitoring the code. Once the Bill is enacted, if our experience leads to the suggestion that the code needs further amendment to deal with problems that might arise, we shall give urgent consideration to its further amendment. At this stage, there is no reason to believe that that will be necessary. We have the same objectives as the right hon. Lady about the Bill.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I do not have a copy of the code, but is the Minister satisfied that, in the allocation policies pursued at administrative level, attention is paid to the problem when a spouse does not want to be rehoused near the other partner because of the possibility of domestic violence?

Mr. Rifkind: That is a consideration that any intelligent authority would take into account. It is clearly not possible to make a statutory obligation to that effect because it would depend on the alternative accommodation that a local authority had available. It is possible that the only vacant houses were in the vicinity and the spouse would have to say whether that was a persuasive reason for her accepting that accommodation or waiting until something better became available. Two kinds of accommodation are available for the homeless. There is emergency accommodation to deal with short-term problems. There is also long-term or permanent alternative accommodation. That is another matter to be taken into account.
The advice given in the code requests local authorities to take into account the circumstances that led to the separation of the parties. No doubt the majority of housing authorities do not want to risk adding to marital discord in the administration of their policies.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Minister is helpful, but can he be more specific? I was not on the Committee but I understand the principles. When he replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) he did not answer her question. We are not discussing the code of guidance. Can he give a satisfactory assurance that the new rights created under the Bill are not in conflict with the definition of being intentionally homeless?

Mr. Rifkind: I can give that assurance because the basis on which the new clause is framed is the suggestion that if a spouse chose not to exert her occupancy rights and not go to court to get implementation of the occupancy rights there is a risk that that would lead to the local authority telling her that she could have sought to impose her occupancy rights if she had wanted to do so. She chose not to do so; therefore, the local authority can consider her intentionally homeless. That would not be consistent with the code of guidance because there might be a series of reasons why a spouse might not wish to pursue her occupancy rights.
Pursuing occupancy rights would not necessarily mean that there would be an exclusion order. Therefore, the spouse might be granted her occupancy rights in the matrimonial home, and she might then be forced to come into contact with the other spouse and might be afraid that she would suffer physical violence unless an exclusion order were part of the occupancy right. I give that as one circumstance which might lead a non-entitled spouse not to seek to exercise her occupancy right.
There may be other reasons but they may not be reasons that the local authority will wish or be able to look into.


The circumstances of the code clearly suggest that it would not be appropriate for a local authority to examine motivation. It should be concerned with the objective facts that exist at the time. The basis of the evidence is the basis on which it decides that there is intentional homelessness. In circumstances where the spouse is concerned about physical or mental violence and is unwilling to return to the matrimonial home—if that was considered a genuine, not a bogus, reason—there is no question that that would not be considered as a basis for describing someone as intentionally homeless.
The code in its present form is satisfactory but it is by no means the final word on the subject. If, in the light of experience, further improvements are thought to be appropriate, we shall look at the effects on the code of the Act once it is in operation. If, contrary to my expectations, problems arise, we shall give serious consideration to further improvements to the code.

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry to detain the House a little longer, but the interventions have shown that this subject is of some interest. A number of my hon. Friends have raised valid points to which the Minister's reply has not been entirely satisfactory, although he has gone some way and I am sure has tried to be helpful.
First, the purpose of the new clause is not merely to cover the problem in which a spouse, presumably the wife, has been the victim of domestic violence. It is true that the code of guidance would cover.
the victim of domestic violence who has fled the matrimonial home",
to repeat the Minister's quotation. It would be ludicrous if that person were treated as intentionally homeless. I accept that the code of guidance makes it clear that that is not intended, and no local authority would intend that.
I direct the Minister's attention to another potential category which is perhaps less appealing emotionally and is less dramatic.
A spouse might leave the domestic home because she and her husband do not get on. Violence might not be involved. The husband might not be guilty of conduct covered by an exclusion order. The wife might just say "I am sorry, it is better that I leave." She could still apply for an exclusion order, because there is no stigma involved in that, but for good reasons she might not choose to do so. When there is no victim or violence, the spouse might be held by an unsympathetic local authority to be in dereliction of her duty by not enforcing her right and, therefore, she might be regarded as intentionally homeless. I tabled the new clause to protect such a person.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's example is valid. It is covered by the code, page 16 of which states:
Authorities should not, however, put pressure on people to return to shared accommodation when this would cause real distress.
One of the reasons for distress might be physical violence, but there could be other reasons. There might be many occasions when there is a distressing relationship between the parties which does not necessarily involve physical violence. Local authorities are especially enjoined not to put pressure on a person to return to shared accommodation in such circumstances. To say that a spouse would not be rehoused in such circumstances would be to impose exactly the pressure which the code specifically asks local authorities not to impose.

Mr. Dewar: That is helpful. I am encouraged. The Minister has said clearly that the code is not a tablet from on high and that if there is need for further amendment he will examine that possibility. We shall want to consider his words carefully. It is a sensitive and important subject.
I am not sure that the Minister is right to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) that nothing in the Bill will inhibit the administrative powers of local authorities to deal with the break-up of a marriage in terms of rehousing and perhaps arranging for a transfer of tenancy. Clause 13 will import such an inhibition into the law. Amendment No. 34 is an attempt to deal with that problem.
I do not intend to press the new clause in view of what the Minister said. However, I am anxious that local authorities should not be left room to take an inflexible and reactionary attitude. In a debate on new clause 2 in Committee on 16 June, we suggested that a spouse who had been excluded from a matrimonial home under clause 4 should not be treated as intentionally homeless. The Minister said in no uncertain terms that he could not accept that the spouse would be treated as intentionally homeless, and that the local authority should have discretion. He said that outrageous conduct which resulted in an exclusion order might make a person intentionally homeless. He said that each case should be decided on its merits. He invited local authorities to use their discretion in each case.
I am worried about the reverse of that picture. A wife who is a non-entitled spouse might not exercise her rights and discretion might be used unsympathetically in a way which is not intended under the 1977 Act. I hope that the Minister will continue to monitor the position.
Representations have been made by the Scottish homeless group, the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless and other organisations about local authorities having no statutory obligations to provide homes for homeless people who do not fall within the categories in the 1977 Act.
Groups with a great deal of experience and expertise are satisfied that there is likely to be an increase in the number of single adult homeless as a result of this measure, That is a price that we pay for a valuable social reform. However, we must deal with it. I had hoped that the Minister would be able to say something encouraging about giving priority to the problem, not necessarily within the framework of the 1977 Act but at least by amending the code of guidance. I had hoped that he would say something sympathetic about making resources available to tackle the problem, which marginally, and perhaps significantly, is likely to be increased by the operation of the Bill.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

RIGHT OF SPOUSE WITHOUT TITLE TO OCCUPY MATRIMONIAL HOME

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
'but if such an individual does not waive his or her right, the court may, on the application of either spouse, make an order declaring the spouse so entitled or permitted to occupy a matrimonial home to be an entitled spouse for the purposes of this Act, and such order will have effect until such time as it terminates in terms of


section 5 of this Act, or the court recalls or varies same, on the application of either spouse or the individual having such an interest'.
This debate will be comparatively short but complicated. It is an echo of far-off days in Committee. The amendment deals with clause 1(2) and with joint owners or joint lessees of a property, or the "two siblings case". I shall describe what I mean. Let us suppose that a property is owned or leased by two brothers and that one of them marries and brings his wife to live in the house. Let us assume that some years later the marriage gets into trouble and breaks up. The wife of one of the owners or lessees might decide to attempt to occupy the matrimonial home and take an action to establish her occupancy rights under this measure. The wife would not be able to pursue that claim unless the brother-in-law—the other owner or tenant—had waived his occupation rights in favour of her husband. That is a complicated situation but it is important.
We argued in Committee about the balance of justice when clearly someone must suffer from an unusual but possible situation. The Under-Secretary took the view that we could not do anything to prejudice the position of the co-owner or co-tenant. He said that to do so would be an attack on property rights. Although he had a certain amount of sympathy with the wife who wished to effect an occupancy right, he believed that her need should give way to the protection of the brother-in-law in the scene which I have just outlined.
I am not satisfied with that. At least there should be a measure of discretion. I said in Committee that occupancy rights might be enforced if the co-tenant or owner was not resident in the home which was the subject of dispute. I can see that there are substantial difficulties in that.
I have come to the conclusion that we should write in a discretion for the court. On the application of one of the parties to the court, it should be able to consider whether it is just and equitable to allow a declarator that the husband is an entitled spouse for the purposes of the Act. Once that was done, the normal tests as to whether an occupancy right should be enforced by the courts would flow from that initial decision. It is an attempt to put in an element of flexibility to allow application to the court to have one of those co-owners or co-tenants declared to be an entitled spouse. That would then bring to life, if I may put it that way, the normal occupancy rights which would be enforced if the courts thought it right, having regard to the criteria for the normal case, which are stated in the later parts of the Bill.
8 pm
On the whole, it is better to have an element of flexibility to take care of the hard case that may arise in which someone was defeated from enforcing occupancy rights in a house which that person had occupied as a matrimonial home for many years, merely because there was a co-owner who might live at the other end of the country and had no immediate prospect of wanting to establish occupancy rights but whose failure to waive those rights would have dealt a fatal blow to the possibilities that would normally lie to that spouse.
This is perhaps an obscure corner of the Bill, but it is not unimportant. I hope that I have made clear to the House what lies behind the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will have given the matter further thought during

the short period that has elapsed since the Committee stage ended. I hope to have a more sympathetic response to what is a genuine effort to meet the difficulty.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I confess that I am thoroughly confuse by entitled spouses, non-entitled spouses, third parties, occupancy rights, and so on. I admit that I am delighted not to have been a member of the Committee. I am not even sure that I understand my hon. Friend's amendment, although I understand the point that he is making.
All sorts of occasions arise regarding the occupancy of the matrimonial home during the break-up of a marriage which cause great distress to the individuals. A case was brought to my attention on Saturday morning, and I hope that the Minister will tell me that it is covered by this part of clause 1. It concerns a woman who probably will not be protected by the Bill. The matter was brought to my attention because other families might find themselves in the same position.
Some years ago the lady's marriage broke up. The husband left the matrimonial home but, largely as a result of the stress of the break-up of the marriage and associated problems, the wife—I suppose that I should call her the spouse—had to spend some time in in-patient care for a mental illness. While she was in hospital the husband transferred the ownership of the matrimonial home, together with other properties which do not arise under the Bill, into the name of what was described to me as his mistress. When the lady finally came out of hospital and went to establish herself in what had been the matrimonial home, the new owner of the property—that is the only way that I can describe her—proceeded to take court action to evict this woman from occupancy of what had been her home.
The problem is even more compounded for my constituent. She maintains that the matrimonial home, together with other properties, had been purchased largely because she had contributed to their purchase from a legacy that she had inherited from her mother.
Time does not permit me to go into all the ramifications of the case. Suffice to say that my constituent has no home to go to, feels that she has no redress in the courts, and feels bitter about it. She is worried that, property laws being what they are, this process could be repeated in one form or another when a marriage breaks up. It is a sad case. I had to tell her that, as the law stood, she should have raised an action in court in regard to having some part of the handed-over property returned to her because she had a financial interest in it.
Why the matter was not pursued in that way, and why legal redress was not sought in various forms, is currently being investigated by the Law Society. However, it is clear that the more one becomes involved in difficulties following a matrimonial break-up, the more the law is obscure and the more the individual rights of the spouse seem to be taken away.
That was never the intention of those of us who over the years played some part in liberalising the divorce laws. It was never intended that one spouse should criminally bypass his responsibilities to a mentally ill wife after the marriage had broken up. Nevertheless, it does not excuse what happened.
The question that I put to the Minister is whether, as the amendment stands—because, clearly, my constituent did not waive her right to the occupancy of the matrimonial


home—it would be possible for her to take action in relation to the matrimonial home, especially since it had been passed to a third party, thereby giving some sort of right of occupancy, or at least right to evict, under the housing legislation. I hope that I have made the case sufficiently clear—I hope that it is a little more clear to the Minister than the Bill is to me—for him to give me some helpful advice.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has given a distressing example of the problems that can arise under the existing law.
Once the Bill is enacted, if a husband who is the sole owner of a property wishes to sell that house to a third party, the mere sale of that house to the third party will not prevent his spouse from continuing to have an occupancy right in that house unless her consent has been obtained to the sale of the house or she has renounced her occupancy rights under the Bill. The only circumstance where that would not apply in future would be where the husband had fraudulently concealed the existence of a wife. The position would be difficult in that the wife's rights would have to be balanced against those of an innocent third party who, through no fault of his own, had purchased a house, and where clearly it would be considered unacceptable that that innocent third party should be deprived of occupancy rights simply because of the husband's fraud.
In those circumstances, the husband would lay himself open to possible criminal prosecution. The wife would have a civil remedy against her husband if he still retained the assets from the sale of the house. Therefore, in many of these cases there would still be a remedy. In the general circumstances which the hon. Gentleman drew to my attention there would be a protection which does not exist at present. That may not help the hon. Gentleman's constituent, because it will apply only once the Bill is enacted, but the circumstance will be substantially better from the spouse's point of view than is the case at present.
I come to the amendment. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will agree that one of the fundamental principles of the Law Commission's recommendations was that it should do nothing that would prejudice the legitimate rights of the third party. The whole question of giving a non-entitled spouse certain occupancy rights as against the spouse could be justified because there was a legal relationship between the parties and because, in the circumstances outlined, the normal overriding interest of the spouse as the owner of the property should be subordinated to the interests of the wife, the non-entitled spouse, in the circumstances laid down in the Bill.
The amendment is not acceptable because it breaches what I believe, and what most people accept, to be a basic requirement—notwithstanding the general changes envisaged by the Bill. The amendment would allow, in certain circumstances, a court to require an innocent third party to continue in residence with a party with whom he had had no legal relationship prior to the court's order and to share the occupation of a house in circumstances where that might be total anathema to him.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman said that that was not the circumstance in which he would wish to see the power exercised. If he re-reads his amendment, he will see that it is by no means exclusive in that sense—nor can it be, because it is impossible to draft it in a way that fully

meets all circumstances. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for that. We must accept that the consequences of his amendment, or any amendment in this sphere, would make it a matter of the court's own discretion, when Parliament had clearly been prepared to envisage circumstances in which a perfectly innocent third party, not involved in a matrimonial dispute, who had acquired joint ownership or joint lease of a property with one party, was required to share it with a separate individual, even though that might be unacceptable to him.
Given that the third party might be related to one of the two spouses—a brother or a sister—and was then forced into joint occupancy, that might be even more difficult and more unacceptable because of the emotional reasons that led to the break-up of the marriage. That would not be a sound basis on which to proceed.
I accept that declining the option suggested by the hon. Gentleman may lead to difficulties in one or two cases—I am sure it would be only a few cases. If we could legislate for individual cases, we might have been only too happy to respond, but as we must legislate for all or for none it would not be right to prejudice the interests of a third party. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being able to accept his amendment.

Mr. Dewar: The denouement does not come as a complete surprise, although it comes as something of a sadness. The Minister has a cynical turn of mind. By implication, he was ungracious about the way in which the courts would exercise the discretion that the amendment attempts to give them. Of course, he may be right if the courts go daft and use their discretion in such a way as to ensure that a co-owner, perhaps a brother of the husband who has left the matrimonial home, then finds himself imprisoned in one small house with his sister-in-law, with all the overtones of family feud. That would be the sort of circumstance in which the discretion would be used.
It would be sad, but it would be an argument for not giving the courts any discretion in any circumstances, because we would be jumping to the conclusion that the courts would always abuse the discretion and reach a wrong-headed conclusion. It is sad that there might now properly have been an exercise of discretion by the courts. However, the case would never reach the court: it would be impossible to invite the court to exercise a discretion because such a discretion would not exist because of the failure to accept the amendment.
8.15 pm
I wish to cite an example. The co-owners of a house may be two brothers. One brother lives in the South of England and maintains a financial interest in the property—perhaps a capital investment, because most people think that bricks and mortar is an appreciable asset. The house is occupied by one brother and his wife. They may have lived there for 10 or 15 years, or even longer. The marriage breaks up. Because the brother in England has not waived his occupancy rights—no one is asking him to waive his ownership rights—the wife's occupancy rights, which might have been overwhelming had the house been owned solely by her husband, are utterly defeated. It was to meet that circumstance—which might not be common, but could arise—that this little amendment was introduced.
I believe that the balance of social justice is giving discretion to the courts. Perhaps I am prejudiced as someone who has earned his living by the law. By and


large, courts are sensible, and by and large that is why we trust them to decide such matters as divorce and the custody of children. I am sorry that the Minister has shown such a cynical approach to the outcome of allowing that discretion to exist. I believe that he is wrong, but as he has hardened his heart I shall not detain the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 2, line 25, at end add—
'(7) The court may set aside any renunciation made under section 5 above on the application of the non-entitled spouse if it is satisfied that there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the said renunciation was signed which might prejudice the said non-entitled spouse, and it seems in all the circumstances just and reasonable so to do.'.
The amendment was a late addition to the list of selection. I wish to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Speaker for showing flexibility in this matter. The amendment will prove helpful to the House because it allows it to debate an issue of real importance—one of the most important issues that has arisen in the legislation.
Amendment No. 27 deals with the vexed question of a waiver by a spouse of her occupancy rights. I do not wish to detain the House for too long. Clause 1 provides a statutory right to occupancy of the matrimonial home. However, subsection (5) provides that a non-entitled spouse, usually the wife, may renounce in writing his or her occupancy rights in a matrimonial home or property. That is an extremely controversial matter. Widespread fears were canvassed in Committee that the provision would be open to abuse. The women's organisations representing women's interests, which are involved in the arguments about rights in a matrimonial break-up, fear that waivers might be signed under duress and that women might be frightened into signing. That is a real and genuine worry.
I said in Committee that even more important is the position in which a wife may sign a waiver at the beginning of a marriage under the impression that it is a matter of little significance, and that she should take her husband's advice—she and her husband being on admirable terms, as are most people shortly after a marriage ceremony. The difficulty is that some 10 or 15 years later, when the marriage is on the rocks, she will see clearly the importance of having rights under the Bill. The husband would be clutching a waiver and saying "I am awfully sorry, but you gave up those rights all those long years ago. It is now just too bad."
We tried to deal with that problem in Committee. I accept that it was a rough and ready approach and one which the Minister was probably right to resist. We tried to deal with it by removing the right to sign a waiver. Perhaps that was too extreme a remedy. As the Minister pointed out, it would have left the common law rights to sign a waiver without the protections of having to have a notarised declaration that no force or pressure had been used. The wife might then have been in an even weaker position.
Amendment No. 27 is clearly a more sophisticated, and I hope more acceptable, approach to the problem. It provides that an element of discretion should be available to the courts. If a wife signed a renunciation or waiver shortly after marriage, and there is then a substantial

interval of time before the marriage is in trouble, her husband will say to her, and perhaps to two or three children, "Get ye gone". That returns to the days of the Victorian penny dreadful when wives were put out into the snow. The husband would be able to do that because he was the owner of the house and the occupancy right had been defeated by the waiver.
In circumstances where there is extreme prejudice, it should be possible to go to the courts and ask them to set aside the renunciation on the basis that there had been a substantial change of circumstances since it was signed, and that it was just and reasonable to set it aside. It builds in a discretion in an attempt to ensure an element of flexibility. A wife who may be young and inexperienced in matters of property and who may not comprehend—or may not be prepared to comprehend—the possibilities of unhappiness entering the matrimonial home when she signs the waiver should not find herself hopelessly prejudiced because of that act.
In a sense, the Minister was right to resist attempts to insert a proviso that before a waiver is signed there has to be legal advice on the significance of signing it. I can understand why he did so. As the safeguard cannot be available in his view, it seems that the element of flexibility provided by the amendment is all the more important.
I buttress my argument by saying that it is not only the wife who is involved. I recognise that it is only the wife who would have rights under the Bill. However, the criteria that are set out in clause 3(3) rightly ensure that the needs of any child of the family bulk very large. I am worried about the situation in which a wife may cheerfully sign the waiver when she has no family. She may be badly prejudiced by her perhaps ill-advised judgment or action at the time. At the same time the occupancy right that would almost certainly have been granted to help protect the children and to give them a home would be ruled out. That means that the children may be severely prejudiced, too.
I am not trying to say that a waiver should be made meaningless. The courts must be satisfied that there has been a genuine change of circumstance. They must be satisfied that it would be right to disregard the waiver. The onus of proof would be much upon the applicant. In many respects the Bill gives discretion to the courts. If there is to be a dealing in a matrimonial home, the consent of the non-entitled spouse is necessary. I accept that it is a consent that can be set aside by the courts. I have no doubt that the courts will use their discretion sensibly in the circumstances.
I ask that the same flexibility should be built into the Bill to cover the extremely important issue raised by the amendment. It may be that through force, ignorance, inadvertence or optimism a situation may arise in which after many years it will become clear that the waiver represents a severe prejudice to social justice and to the rights of the wife and the children. That will become apparent if there is a crisis and the crunch comes in the marriage. As I have said, the onus of proof should be firmly on the applicant, but it should be possible to approach the courts to ask them to exercise a wise and humane discretion. In that spirit I urge strongly on the Minister the worth and justice of the amendment.

Dr. M. S. Miller: It is not pitching it too high to say that the value of the Bill—I do not deny that it is


considerable—depends upon the clause that we are discussing. However, its value may be considerably reduced if the clause remains exactly in its present form. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary for the changes that he agreed to make in Committee. I pay especial tribute to him for agreeing to remove the reference to "justice of the peace" in clause 6. The hon. Gentleman understands that a justice of the peace may sign something without being concerned with the contents of the document. When performing that act he is merely witnessing a signature.
I am concerned that the clause is not sufficiently strongly slanted towards safeguarding the wife when a marriage breaks down. It is easy to say that the issue is met by making a renunciation possible if it is sworn or affirmed before a notary public. To a legal mind, that seems to satisfy all requirements. However, in practical terms that is sometimes not enough. We all know that a swearing of that kind brings with it a renunciation of rights that can be obtained by means that are difficult to prove but which nevertheless are good.
For example, there are brutal husbands who abuse and terrorise their wives. That abuse or terror normally arises from physical violence but it can he occasioned by mental cruelty. The husband can say "If you do not renounce your rights, you will suffer the consequences. If you think that you have had a hammering tonight, imagine what your hammering will be tomorrow." That is difficult to prove in a court of law unless the woman appears with bruises and black eyes. It is difficult to prove that coercion has occurred. On occasions it may be achieved in a more subtle manner. If the woman signs the waiver, she loses any right that has been accorded to her.
Before we allow the Bill to pass through the House in its present form with the clause intact, we should consider carefully how we can strengthen the right of the spouse, who in these circumstances is usually the woman. I have had experience in my medical practice of circumstances of the sort that I have described. We have all had similar experience in our political lives. It is no use wringing our hands afterwards and saying "There is no proof. There is nothing that we can do about it." We should be strengthening the Bill and not allowing this weak part to remain. To mouth a cliche or platitude, a chain is as strong as its weakest link. We are discussing the weak link. It is the link which allows a brutal husband to threaten, intimidate and coerce his wife and to make her go to a notary public to renounce her rights to the matrimonial home.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. It would result in some strengthening of the clause. I agree that it is not possible to cover every case. However, the Bill is largely applicable to cases which involve brutality to wives, and such cases are by no means few. In some areas the majority of cases will involve the break-up of a marriage because of brutality. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment because it would give the courts more say, more interest and a possibility to order more investigations to be carried out if there was any suspicion whatever that the renunciation had been made under duress.
8.30 pm
I cannot too strongly urge the Minister to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and those members of the Committee who pushed

for the inclusion of an amendment such as this. I plead with him to consider carefully the necessity for such an amendment.

Mr. Rifkind: I begin by reassuring the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). He is concerned that a spouse may, through fear or through the exercise of violence, be forced into renouncing her rights against her free will.
The Bill in its present form makes it abundantly clear that any purported renunciation of right that can be shown to have been made under duress would be invalid. It is not necessary to add a new clause or an amendment allowing the court to invalidate such a renunciation simply because it transpires that there had been no free will to start with. Clause 1 in its present form states specifically that any renunciation
shall have effect only if at the time of making the renunciation, the non-entitled spouse has sworn or affirmed before a notary public that it was made freely and without coercion of any kind.
If it can be demonstrated at any time that the renunciation was not
made freely and without coercion of any kind
I have little doubt that any so-called renunciation would be held to be invalid in any event. The fundatnental requirement for such a renunciation to be valid would not have been met.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The Minister says "If it can be shown at any time that there was some kind of intimidation". What does he mean by "any time"? Is it six months, a year or two years later?

Mr. Rifkind: If the spouse is required to swear that the renunciation was
made freely and without coercion of any kind
she cannot do so if it is false, if she is under duress at the time of swearing and if she is making such an oath when she is under fear of violence and so on. Any oath made in those circumstances would clearly not be freely given, and therefore the fundamental basis on which the renunciation had been made, the fundamental requirement for the renunciation to have effect, would not have been satisfied. If those circumstances existed and could be demonstrated subsequently, it would invalidate any apparent pledge or vow that had been given by the spouse concerned.

Mr. Dewar: I understand what the Minister is saying, but it is a fairly obscure point. He is saying that if the oath before the notary public had been extracted by violence, or fear of violence, that would make it invalid. Presumably in that case one would have to petition the courts—perhaps the Court of Session with a petition to the noble officium—to have the prima facie evidence of the notarised oath set aside. That would be a complicated and difficult procedure. I believe that to be an additional argument for inserting a statutory discretion to make it clear that the courts could deal with such a case.

Mr. Rifkind: If the other arguments in favour of the hon. Gentleman's amendment were persuasive, I agree that this would be an additional benefit. However, at the moment I am dealing with the specific example that concerned the hon. Member for East Kilbride—that where an oath had been given to a notary public saying that the renunciation was freely given and without duress and that was not the case, that would not be a change in circumstances such as that referred to in the amendment. That would be a matter that related to the original


renunciation. Therefore, even the amendment would not help to deal with the problem. There would not be a change of circumstances. The circumstances would be relevant to the renunciation itself and would invalidate that renunciation.
The Government have accepted all along that if we are to have the right to renounce, proper safeguards will be required. We have come a significant way since the original recommendations by the Law Commission, in order to meet not only what we began by believing to be appropriate but the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
In Committee the hon. Member for East Kilbride welcomed the fact that we accepted the Opposition amendment to remove the possibility of a justice of the peace being all that was required to certify a renunciation. I accepted that that was a worthwhile suggestion made by the Opposition which, on consideration, we were inclined to accept as a substantial improvement on the existing wording of the clause.
There is another major way in which we changed the original proposals of the Law Commission. The Law Commission says specifically in its memorandum and in its report that any renunciation by a non-entitled spouse should apply not only to the matrimonial home in which the parties were living but to any future matrimonial home. Therefore, a renunciation would apply even to a house which might be purchased later in the marriage.
As the House will see from the Bill in its present form, any renunciation comes to an end if the parties move house. As that is by far the most normal circumstance of the vast majority of married couples in the early years of their marriage, if a renunciation were to continue a new one would be required. The clause at present says:
A non-entitled spouse may renounce in writing his or her occupancy rights, only—

(a) in a particular matrimonial home; or
(b) in a particular property which it is intended by the spouses will become a matrimonial home."
Therefore, there is no open-ended, lifelong renunciation such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentioned. The hon. Member also mentioned the children of the marriage. If examined further, those points too do not have as much persuasive substance as there might be.
Firstly, there is the point to which I have just referred, that the parties, when they are first married and have no children, are likely to have smaller accommodation. If children are then born, in the normal circumstances the couple will move to another matrimonial home, in which case the renunciation will become invalid. I am using that not as a final argument but only as a relevant consideration.
If the couple are living in the original matrimonial home and children are born, I suggest that the hon. Member's amendment would not meet that requirement. His amendment specifically restricts any change in circumstances to a change in circumstances which might prejudice not the children of the marriage but the said non-entitled spouse. Therefore, there has to be a change in circumstances of that kind which would have to be fulfilled to meet a requirement, even in the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I suggest that that does not meet the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
There is also a further basic consideration which we have to take into account. It relates to one of the original

reasons why renunciation is provided for in the Bill. One of the points of a right of renunciation is, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) said in Committee, the possibility that renunciation by a non-entitled spouse may be a condition of a loan being provided to assist the entitled spouse in respect of a mortgage on the property, in respect of his own business or due to some other consideration—a not unusual circumstance.
If the basis of that renunciation is to provide a guarantee to the third party, it would otherwise not be available. If, in certain circumstances from the moment it has been granted, a renunciation is to be able to be revoked by the courts on non-specified circumstances which may not exist when the renunciation is initially granted, any third party relying on that renunciation would be in an impossible position and its requirement would not have been satisfied.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, reminding him that the circumstances put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus in Committee were recognised by the hon. Gentleman as a relevant example of circumstances in which renunciation might be considered appropriate by both parties when it was made.

Mr. Dewar: I accept that. That arose in an interesting passage in which the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) had to erase doubts for the Minister as to whether renunciation was not final and whether it could be time-limited or tailored to specific circumstances. I accept that if one says that the courts should have a discretion, one could build up a nightmare in which the courts are impervious to reason and are faced with someone saying that the waiver was signed to allow him to raise money to keep a family business going and to keep 56 people in employment.
If we presuppose that, faced with such a situation, the courts will wreck that arrangement by saying that they will withdraw the waiver, we are giving such a massive vote of no confidence to the courts that the question is not open to serious argument or consideration. I therefore hope that the Minister will not press that point.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. While I appreciate that these are not circumstances in which the courts would normally want to exercise their discretion, they must look at the words contained in the statute, and the only relevant consideration that the courts would be enjoined to look at if the amendment were accepted would be whether there had been a substantial change in circumstances of prejudice to the non-entitled party. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) wants to intervene, I shall happily give way. However, I am trying to answer his hon. Friend, and I am not helped if the right hon. Gentleman continually makes sedentary interventions.

Mr. Bruce Milian: I am not continually making interventions, sedentary or otherwise. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is getting so excited. He is producing an extremely weak case. I was inviting him to read the remainder of the amendment.

Mr. Rifkind: The remainder of the amendment states:


that there has been a substantial change in circumstance since the said renunciation was signed which might prejudice the said non-entitled spouse, and it seems in all the circumstances just and reasonable so to do.".
However, according to the amendment, the main factor which the courts would be enjoined to take into account would be whether there had been a change of circumstance which was of prejudice to one person—the non-entitled spouse. That is the prejudice that the courts are specifically requested to take into account.
My point is that there may be circumstances, which might explain why the renunciation was originally entertained, which might lead to prejudice to a third party if the renunciation were revoked. I do not believe that that is a fundamental basis on which to make a change of this kind.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister seems to be erecting his main argument against the amendment on the fact that it is drafted in such a way that prejudice must be to the non-entitled spouse and could not include prejudice to the children. However, if the amendment were accepted, it would have to go to the other place, and presumably it would be possible to put that right there. I would be favourably disposed to such a change.

Mr. Rifkind: My point is that the Government are not encouraging people to renounce their rights. We have specifically said that that is a matter to be decided by adults, freely and without any intemperate or unacceptable pressure put upon them. We have already accepted important and justified safeguards put forward by the Opposition which will help ensure that any renunciation should be carried out with proper safeguards and with the presence of a notary public rather than a justice of the peace.
We have rejected the Law Commission's own desire that any renunciation should apply throughout the whole marriage to any matrimonial home, and we have restricted it to a specific matrimonial home. A renunciation by a spouse in those circumstances does not deserve more protection than any other legal document which a person signs before a notary public, aware of what he is doing. We do not normally provide for special circumstances whereby legal commitments, freely entered into, can be revoked by the courts simply because one party has petitioned that there has been a change of circumstance since the commitment was entered into.
At the moment, the spouse has no legal rights whatever. The Government have introduced a Bill to provide major legal rights. We have introduced original safeguards and added to them at the request of the Opposition. However, we are now considering an agreement freely entered into by both spouses, witnessed by a notary public, where the non-entitled spouse has had to give an oath that it was not made under duress and where a third party may have acted in good faith on the basis of that renunciation. Despite all these circumstances, we are asked to envisage that the court should be able to ordain that the agreement should be torn up, irrespective of the effect that that might have.
I am aware that the court would apply common sense to that criterion, but if we were always to view matters in that way we would allow any decision, any contract, to be renounced by the court if it were reasonable to do so. Normally, we say that if adults, using free will, make a contract, the courts are not entitled to tear it up simply because one party believes, and can put forward a

persuasive case, that there has been a change of circumstance. The same principle can be applied to buying and selling a house and to other forms of contractual relationship. We do not normally apply that criterion and there are no persuasive arguments why we should in this case.

Dr. M. S. Miller: We are dealing with matrimonial homes and family protection, not with the ordinary run-of-the-mill circumstances which the Minister mentioned. His list of cases in which a similar type of situation might arise is impressive, but the clause is concerned only with the protection of the occupancy rights of one spouse against another. Any break-up of marriage is a traumatic experience for the spouse who is adversely affected. The women's organisations feel that the clause should have been omitted, and I see their point. That was the advice that some people in Committee were giving. But the clause was not left out and is in itself a compromise.
We can understand that there will be circumstances in which a renunciation has to be made, but there should be an additional safeguard. The link is weak. With the additional safeguard, the link becomes a little stronger, and that is all we ask.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in one matter. None of us would wish to encourage spouses to renounce their occupancy rights without first having given careful thought to it and unless it is certain that it is being done as an exercise of free will without undue duress. I do not in any way suggest that the renunciation of occupancy rights should be the norm, nor that we should encourage people to do that. The Bill in no way suggests that.
We are not dealing with children or with people who cannot be trusted to understand their position. That is a paternalistic approach which I do not think the Opposition would wish to take. We are dealing with adults. Where adults, freely and without duress, have made an agreement and sworn an oath before a notary public, and where there are proper safeguards, as exist in the Bill—partly thanks to the Opposition's proposals which have been accepted—that is a proper basis on which to deal with adult members of the community.
We must not say that contracts or agreements freely entered into can be repudiated unilaterally simply by showing a change of circumstance to the court. If people are concerned about possible changes of circumstance, they may not wish to enter into such a renunciation in the first place, and I would not blame them. Where they have so decided, it is a matter on which third parties may have acted and depended. For that reason—but not just for that reason—this is not an acceptable amendment.
I hope that the Opposition will appreciate that the Government have come a great deal of the way to ensuring that proper safeguards are introduced. We have not ignored the possibilities of abuse. We have made changes to the Law Commission's recommendations. We have accepted important Opposition amendments. But I cannot in all honesty recommend acceptance of an amendment which allows a freely-entered-into contract to be repudiated at a later date in the circumstances referred to.

Mr. Dewar: As the Minister might expect, I find that a most unsatisfactory reply. We cannot leave the matter there.
I do not take the view that the waiver is such an important matter in any event, because I believe that the circumstances in which it may legitimately be used are very limited indeed. Those who have read the report of the Committee proceedings will recall that the efforts of Conservative Members to cite circumstances in which a waiver could legitimately be used were almost farcical.
They founded their case, first, upon paragraph 2.77 of the Law Commission report, which suggested that
money may be provided by a wife's family for the purchase of a matrimonial home but on condition that the husband prospectively renounces his occupancy rights on a general basis.
In other words, a home is being bought by in-laws who have so little trust at the beginning of their daughter's matrimonial career as to insist that their son-in-law renounces all possible rights under the Bill. That seems to me to be an unlikely set of circumstances and one that I would not wish to encourage.
When Conservative members of the Committee were invited to embroider their case and to explain exactly when these circumstances would arise, we heard an extraordinary selection of suggestions. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock), for example, offered the horrifying prospect of a man whose debutante daughter insisted upon marrying a dustman. He suggested that in those circumstances one would certainly want a waiver from the dustman, so that he would not get his—probably literally—dirty paws upon any house in which the wife's parents might have invested.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) said in Committee:
What happens—and this summer it will happen again—is that a pretty young Scots girl"—
a delightful prospect—
will go off to Majorca for a sunny holiday and meet a delightful Spanish waiter, Manuel. Things take their course. She returns home three or four weeks later. He comes over to Scotland and a marriage follows …it might be described as a 'haftie' marriage".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 9 June 1981; c. 40.]
I take it that he meant that the young lady was pregnant. The hon. Member thought that in those circumstances it would be proper to insist that the unfortunate Manuel renounced all his occupancy rights and signed a waiver just in case at some future date we had the horrifying prospect of a Spanish gentleman enforcing normal matrimonial rights under Scottish law.
Those were literally the only examples that the combined wisdom of Conservative Members could produce to justify the social case for this waiver with which nobody is to be allowed to tamper.
I believe that the number of cases in which people could justifiably demand that a waiver be signed is extremely limited. The good cases for a person voluntarily signing such a waiver would be limited to the extraordinary circumstances of this being done for a very short period, perhaps to allow the security of a matrimonial home to raise money to save a business, as has been mentioned. Certainly the general social case is not strong.
I therefore believe that we are on very strong ground in suggesting that the flexibility represented by this moderately worded amendment should be included in the Bill. The Minister said a few moments ago that somebody might refuse to enter into a waiver and that he would not blame him for that. The trouble is that people may thoughtlessly—perhaps without the canny caution

displayed by the Minister—enter into a waiver and blame themselves afterwards. It is not a matter of the Minister blaming them. They would blame themselves when they found themselves in an impossible situation, perhaps many years later.
I am not impressed with the sanctity of contract argument paraded by the Minister. A contract is normally between two parties. This case, however, involves the unilateral renunciation of right by an individual. The House is therefore entitled to consider whether an element of flexibility should be written in, to ensure that an unfortunate mistake or error of judgment is not carried out. The Minister is right, of course, that if third parties have acted in good faith on the basis of the waiver that would be a relevant consideration which might lead the court to refuse to waive the renunciation when it came to decide the matter, but that is not an argument for saying that in no circumstances should the option be open to a party to have recourse to the courts.
The more I listen to the debate, the more certain I am that we are correct to insist on this matter. I invite my hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 149.

Division No. 237]
[8.55 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Alton, David
Lamond, James


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
McElhone, Frank


Buchan, Norman
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
McKelvey, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McTaggart, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Marks, Kenneth


Carmichael, Neil
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Coleman, Donald
Maxton, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin F.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cowans, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Craigen, J. M.
Morton, George


Cryer, Bob
O'Neill, Martin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Palmer, Arthur


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Radice, Giles


Dempsey, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dewar, Donald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dixon, Donald
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Dormand, Jack
Rooker, J. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Eadie, Alex
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Eastham, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Ewing, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Spriggs, Leslie


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Stoddart, David


Grant, John (Islington C)
Strang, Gavin


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Wigley, Dafydd


Home Robertson, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hooley, Frank
Winnick, David


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Mr. James Tinn and


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Mr. James Hamilton.






NOES


Alexander, Richard
McQuarrie, Albert


Aspinwall, Jack
Major, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Marlow, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Mather, Carol


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mills, Iain (Merlden)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Biggs-Davison, John
Moate, Roger


Blackburn, John
Morgan, Geraint


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mudd, David


Bowden, Andrew
Murphy, Christopher


Braine, Sir Bernard
Myles, David


Bright, Graham
Neale, Gerrard


Brinton, Tim
Newton, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Onslow, Cranley


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Buck, Antony
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Budgen, Nick
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Bulmer, Esmond
Patten, John (Oxford)


Butcher, John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Pollock, Alexander


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Rathbone, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Renton, Tim


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Rhodes James, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Colvin, Michael
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Cope, John
Rossi, Hugh


Cranborne, Viscount
Rost, Peter


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dorrell, Stephen
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dover, Denshore
Sims, Roger


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eggar, Tim
Speed, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Speller, Tony


Falrgrieve, Russell
Spence, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Sproat, Iain


Fox, Marcus
Squire, Robin


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Stanley, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Stradllng Thomas, J.


Goodlad, Alastair
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Gow, Ian
Tebblt, Norman


Gower, Sir Raymond
Temple-Morris, Peter


Greenway, Harry
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Grylls, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Hamilton, Hon A.
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hannam,John
Trippier, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Viggers, Peter


Hawksley, Warren
Waddington, David


Heddle, John
Walker, B. (Perth )


Hordern, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Waller, Gary


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Ward, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Watson, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Knight, Mrs Jill
Wlckenden, Keith


Lang, Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Wolfson, Mark


Le Marchant, Spencer
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)



Luce, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Lyell, Nicholas
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and


MacGregor, John
Mr. Donald Thompson.


MacKay, John (Argyll)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

SUBSIDIARY AND CONSEQUENTIAL RIGHTS

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 16, leave out 'may'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this, it is convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 28 and 29.

Mr. Rifkind: These amemdments arise out of a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). They give a measure of guidance to the court in relation to orders apportioning expenditure between the spouses so that their respective ability to pay is not overlooked. The amendments represent a useful improvement to the Bill, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Milan: We are grateful for this group of amendments, which improve the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 3, line 16, after 'them', insert
'may, having regard in particular to the respective financial circumstances of the spouses,".
No. 3, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'may'.
No. 4, in page 3, line 32, after 'spouse,' insert
'may, having regard in particular to the respective financial circumstances of the spouses:'.
No. 28, in page 4, line 7, leave out 'may'.
No. 29, in page 4, line 7, after 'spouse,', insert
'may, having regard in particular to the respective financial circumstances of the spouses,'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 3

REGULATION BY COURT OF RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY OF MATRIMONIAL HOME

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 24, leave out 'and',.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 6, 8, 14, 17, 44 and 45.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendment and those grouped with it give effect to a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that an offer of alternative accommodation is an important factor that should be mentioned as specifically worthy of the court's attention. Although it may not arise often, the Government accept that this is a relevant consideration that should be taken into account.

Mr. Milan: We are grateful for these amendments that arise from an Opposition suggestion in Committee. We believe that they improve the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 5, line 31, at end insert
'; and
'(e) whether the entitled spouse offers or has offered to make available to the non-entitled spouse any suitable alternative accommodation. '.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 31, at end insert—


'(e) Whether the applicant spouse has at any time lived in the matrimonial home which is the subject of his or her application.'.
This amendment relates to the important matter of the criteria in clause 3(3) which define the test that the courts will have to apply when they decide whether there should be a declarator of occupancy rights and the other possibilities under the clause. There is also reference to the criteria in clause 4. The amendment is designed to write in further criteria. I move it in a probing spirit.
I wish to raise the specific problem of the matrimonial home to which the particular powers in clause 3 are likely to apply. In a simple case, if a matrimonial home is lived in by both spouses at the time they separate and subsequently one spouse attempts to get a declarator of occupancy over the home under clause 3, there can be no argument. There is, however, no time limit on the process. A situation could arise where the matrimonial home may be sold and the entitled spouse may move into a new house.
As a slight variation on that prospect, a situation might arise in which the matrimonial home, at the time of the break-up, was tenanted either in the private sector or as a council house. After the break-up, the entitled spouse—the husband, for the sake of argument—might proceed to buy himself into owner-occupation in a manner of which the Minister would no doubt approve. I understand that some dispute would then arise as to the circumstances in which that home would still be a matrimonial home in terms of this legislation.
The Minister suggested in Committee that the matter might depend on whether the entitled spouse had the care, control or custody of the children on the ground that if the husband, who had brought the new home, was living in it with the children he was, by that definition, living in a family home, even though the non-entitled spouse had never been under the roof. The hon. Gentleman suggested, on the other hand, that if the children were not there and that the custody of the children, as often happens in Scottish courts, had gone to the mother, it might not be the family home.
That seems strange to me and I wonder whether the Minister has given further thought to it since the Committee stage. The amendment was tabled to ventilate this matter and to give him an opportunity to comment further. The amendment adds a new criterion to be considered by the courts—whether the applicant spouse has at any time lived in the matrimonial home which is the subject of the application.
Apart from the criteria of conduct, respective needs and financial resources, it might be relevant—I underline the word "might" and put it no higher—for the courts to consider whether the matrimonial home had been used by the spouses in the normally accepted sense. Some years might elapse before the issue arose and it would have to be considered whether this home had been acquired—perhaps it was the first home to be acquired by the entitled spouse for owner—occupation-or whether the home had appeared at a later date, long after the break-up of the spouses.
No doubt the Minister will be aware of that. I do not mean to be critical but I was a little dissatisfied with the grey area that emerged even in the light of his comments in Committee. Has the Minister had any further thoughts?

Mr. Rifkind: Clause 3(3) states that if the court decides to grant an occupancy right it must be satisfied that two criteria have been fulfilled. The first is that the house is a matrimonial home. Secondly, the court is enjoined to take into account various considerations in deciding whether to grant an occupancy right.
In considering whether a house is a matrimonial home one must consider the definition of "matrimonial home", as that is what the court would do. The hon. Gentleman will see that a matrimonial home is defined in the Bill as a "family residence". It must be decided in each case whether it would be appropriate to conclude whether a house is or is not a family home. In deciding that, the court might wish to take into account whether the parties have or have not lived in that house before. In some cases one of the spouses may never have lived in that house, and the court may conclude that as a consequence the house is not a matrimonial home. Therefore, it would not be necessary for the court to consider the second part of the requirements to be fulfilled.
If the court decides that a house is a family residence—that may be decided in circumstances even where one or both of the parties has never lived in the house—only then does the court address itself to the other requirements.
I said that there was a possibility of a house being considered a matrimonial home when neither of the parties had lived in it. I give an example because it is not impossible, although it is a highly improbable scenario. Nowadays, many men work overseas either in the diplomatic service or for companies, and their wives and families join them. It is not unusual for them to buy a house before going overseas or while they are overseas, to be used as a home if and when they return on leave or permanently. On some occasions, neither spouse will have lived in the house, and sometimes only one of the spouses will have lived in it. On any commonsense interpretation, that would be considered a matrimonial home. Therefore, I do not want to suggest to the courts or to the House that that is a relevant consideration in deciding occupancy rights.
The legitimate concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman is a concern that will be determined by the courts in deciding the first requirement of a matrimonial home. If the court concludes that it is a matrimonial home, it will then consider the other circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to press his amendment.

Mr. Dewar: It will be a relief to the House to know that I have no intention of pressing my amendment. I am reasonably satisfied with what the Minister said. In view of my remarks about his sceptical attitude to the courts being able to exercise a wise discretion, it would be unfair for me to suggest that they will not do so. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 43, at end insert—
'(4A) The court shall not make an order under subsection (3) or (4) above if it appears that the effect of the order would be to exclude the non-applicant spouse from the matrimonial home. '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 31, in clause 4, page 6, line 39, after 'court', insert '(a)'.
No. 32, in clause 4, page 6, line 44, at end insert—
'or (b) it is reasonable in all the circumstances including the suitability of the accommodation that the applicant spouse and non-applicant spouse should both live in the matrimonial home. '.

Mr. Rifkind: I shall not comment on the Opposition amendments until the proposals have been explained.
Government Amendment No. 7 fulfils an undertaking which I gave in Committee to clarify the extent to which it might be possible to use clause 3 to produce what amounts to an exclusion order in relation to the occupancy rights of the parties to the marriage.
Various suggestions were made in Committee about whether that was a desirable use of clause 3. I said that the Government believed that if it was thought appropriate to use such an unprecedented power to exclude the owner from a property in which he had previously lived and to which he retained a title it was essential that it be used only in special circumstances where, for example, there was a threat to the physical or mental health of the other spouse and where the complicated procedures in the clause applied. We believe that if that does not apply it is not right to use clause 3 in a way which would lead to the exclusion of a spouse who has entitlement to the property.
We are dealing with delicate circumstances when the title to a property will no longer, in certain circumstances, give an occupancy right to that property. Where that is provided, it should be done explicitly and with proper safeguards. We tabled Government amendment No. 7 on that basis. Its effect is to ensure that the objective that I described in Committee is properly fulfilled.

Mr. Millan: Taken by itself, we oppose the Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 mysteriously have not been selected, although they are an integral part of amendments Nos. 31 and 32. If amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are accepted, amendments Nos. 37 and 38 should follow.
The Minister's remarks follow comments that I made on Second Reading. I said that there seemed to be a serious gap in the Bill. I said that clause 3 provided for the regulation of occupancy rights and that clause 4 was separate, dealing with exclusion orders. I was interrupted by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who said that clause 3 provided for exclusion.
If clause 3 is intended to deal with exclusion, it should be stated on the face of the clause. A clause should not appear to do one thing when it does something else. I agree with the Minister to that extent.
If clause 3 does not include the right of exclusion from the home, clause 4 is defective. Exclusion orders under clause 4 apply only where the particular circumstances of clause 4(2) apply. Those circumstances deal with an unreasonable or, more particularly, a violent spouse. It is common ground that in such circumstances the other spouse should have the opportunity to apply for an exclusion order.
The trouble is that in a vast variety of cases, although it will not necessarily be true that one spouse has been violent or even behaved unreasonably towards the other spouse, it will no longer be sensible, right or reasonable that the two spouses should share the matrimonial home. In many of those circumstances an application under clause 3 will be completely inappropriate, because the nature of the home, the extent of the accommodation, will not be such that clause 3 can be sensibly applied to declare the respective rights of one spouse or another.
That is all right when one is dealing with a large house where it is possible for spouses to live reasonably happily because they can live separate lives within the same accommodation. However, in the vast majority of cases it will not be possible for the court to lay down the respective occupancy rights of the wife and husband.
In those circumstances, what is needed is an exclusion order. Unfortunately, the Bill ties an exclusion order to the question of violent conduct, or something approaching it. In clause 15—this is where my amendments Nos. 37 and 38 would apply—powers of arrest are introduced because one is dealing there with a violent husband or wife. That is perfectly sensible and appropriate when one is dealing with an exclusion order relating to the violent conduct of the husband towards the wife or the wife towards the husband.
I said on Second Reading that there was a huge gap in the Bill and that there would be many cases in which neither clause 3 nor clause 4 would be particularly appropriate. The Government, in amendment No. 7, are making clause 3 nugatory in the vast majority of cases. If that amendment had been tabled by an opponent of the Bill, I would have said that it was a wrecking amendment. Amendment No. 7, taken by itself, is a wrecking amendment. That is what it will amount to. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has been in touch with women's organisations, takes exactly the same view.
What is required is an amendment to clause 3 but also an amendment to clause 7 to provide for exclusion—here I differ in principle with the Minister—in circumstances where violence or apprehended violent conduct is not involved but that is simply the only satisfactory way to deal with a situation where it is no longer reasonable or sensible that the husband and wife should live together in the same matrimonial home.
That is what amendment No. 32 does. It says that it is unreasonable in all circumstances, including the suitability of the accommodation—a point that I have already made—that the applicant spouse and non-applicant spouse should both live in the matrimonial home.
Amendment No. 31 would give two sets of circumstances for exclusion orders under clause 4, by inserting the letter (a) in line 39 on page 6, which deals with the existing circumstances that are provided in the Bill at present.
Amendment No. 32, by providing a new paragraph (b), provides an opportunity for an exclusion order, which I believe in many circumstances is the only satisfactory solution to the problem of the matrimonial home. It provides for an exclusion order where the circumstances are not circumstances of violence but simply a question whether it is reasonable for the spouses to live together. That will rest to a considerable extent not only on the relationship between the spouses but also on the suitability of the accommodation.
I wish to make it clear that in making that division in clause 4(2) both paragraphs, including the new paragraph provided by amendment No. 32, will be subject to all the arguments and factors to be taken into account that are provided for in clause 4(3). There would be no question of the court not having to look at all the circumstances of the case. It could, however, look at the circumstances in the context of exclusion even where there was non-violent conduct—something that it could not do if we accept amendment No. 7.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 disapply the powers of arrest to the new provision. Obviously, if the court took the view that a husband or wife should be excluded because it was unreasonable to expect them to live together but there was no question of violent conduct, we would not want to introduce the powers of arrest and the other provisions in clause 15. They are valid and reasonable only where there is violence. Otherwise, normal civil remedies rather than criminal remedies should apply. When I say that amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are integral to the argument, I hope that the Minister will accept that.
If we divide clause 4 to provide for the two sets of circumstances, it is necessary to make consequential amendments later in the Bill to make it clear that a spouse who is not violent will not have the powers of arrest applied to him. As I said on Second Reading, if the Bill is not amended as I suggest, and especially if it is amended by amendment No. 7, either there will be a variety of cases where the Bill will not bite at all, and considerable hardship and injustice will apply, or another injustice will arise by application being made under clause 4, even in circumstances where the husband is not a violent man and has not behaved in a violent way but where the court—because it believes the position between husband and wife is intolerable—will grant orders under clause 4 which, in terms of exclusion, will give the right answer but will cause a shadow to fall over the guilty party by finding him—if it is the husband, as it usually is—guilty of violent or unreasonable conduct, perhaps in circumstances where there is no unreasonable conduct but the husband and wife simply find themselves living in an intolerable position.
The stigma that would attach to the unsuccessful spouse under clause 4 would be unjustified in those circumstances. If we allow the Bill to pass amended in the way that the Minister wishes, I believe that the court will stretch clause 4 in that way. Not to do so would leave an intolerable gap in the Bill that would allow unsatisfactory circumstances to continue, in a way that was not intended when the Bill was introduced.
I say strongly that we would not be against amendment No. 7 if it were accompanied by amendments Nos. 31 and 32. If all three amendments and subsequent amendments were written into the Bill, we would have a complete story. We should be doing what was intended when the Bill was originally introduced. Amendment No. 7 without amendment Nos. 31 and 32 is almost a wrecking amendment. It will reduce the effectiveness of the Bill considerably.

Mr. Rifkind: I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian). I acknowledge the importance of the part of the clause that we are discussing.
The Government consider that the Bill's purpose is to provide occupancy rights for both spouses to a marriage. That is not to say that in the majority of cases one spouse, and one spouse only, must be given the right to live in the house when a marriage breaks up and that the other spouse must be deprived of that right. The circumstances in which that rather extreme remedy should be imposed upon the spouses to a marriage should be clear and explicit. Those

are circumstances which would justify in any normal sense of the phrase the rather extreme measures which the court would be imposing upon the marriage.
I concede that the amendment is introduced with the best of intentions. However, in virtually every case in which a marriage had broken up it would result in the court being asked not merely to pronounce on the occupancy rights of the spouses but, in effect, to decide which of the two spouses was to be excluded from the matrimonial home in favour of the other spouse. If both spouses had a similar legal title to the property or had no title to it, that might be a not unfair proposition to advance. However, we are concerned with the circumstance in which one spouse, who is the owner of the property and who until the enactment of the Bill has an unqualified right to possession of the property, is to be deprived of his right.
The Law Commission and the Government feel that we are entitled to make what is by any stretch of the imagination a fairly drastic change in our law only when special circumstances have arisen which make it impossible for the parties to be expected to live together. That situation will arise not only when physical violence is involved, to which most of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were directed. The Law Commission acknowledges and the Bill recognises that these circumstances may arise in the absence of physical attacks or threatened physical attacks on the one spouse by the other spouse but when there is a danger to the mental health of one of the spouses. That is why the Bill is so phrased. However, fairly severe conditions have to be met. When the physical or mental health of the spouse is in danger or is threatened, an exclusion order may be granted.
We must never lose sight of the effect of that order, which is to deprive the owner of property of his right to live in that property. This is an innovation in our law. It is one that will not be available except in the circumstances laid down in the Bill. Implementation may take place only if there is actual or threatened violence, physical or mental, to the health of the other spouse.
The amendment would so broaden that condition as to suggest to the courts that any time there was a matrimonial break-up and the wife or the husband was able to say "I do not want to live with my spouse, we cannot live together", they would be able to exercise judgment on who, on balance, should be given the right to live in the house. If that happened, no weight could be given to the fact that one of the spouses was the owner of the house and that the other spouse had no legal right to it. That would not be a fair approach.
If a spouse is to be excluded from the right of occupancy despite his or her legal title, that should happen only when there is actual or threatened injury to the physical or mental health of the other spouse. It is a serious requirement, and it is right that it should be. Having read the Law Commission's views on the matter, I very much doubt whether it would have been prepared to contemplate an exclusion order where it was agreed that there was not the slightest evidence of injury to the physical or mental health of the other spouse, so that the owner of the house should be totally excluded, or capable of being totally excluded, from his own property by the courts.
That was not the Law Commission's view. It was not the basis of representations that were received, certainly not until a late stage in the passage of the Bill—and only then from certain organisations. Although I freely acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's motivation, I


believe that to do what he wants would mean a far more serious invasion of the rights of owners of property than could be justified in the circumstances that he wishes to deal with.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will believe that we have given genuine consideration to the matter, because we acknowledge the difficulties that he has referred to. I do not believe that Government amendment No. 7 by itself would be a wrecking amendment, because the whole point of the clause is that in circumstances in which an exclusion order is not appropriate the courts should still have the opportunity to indicate the occupancy rights of the spouses. It is a clarifying amendment, consistent with the whole basis of the clause, and it is on that basis that: I reluctantly do not feel able to accept what the right hon. Gentleman proposes.
The right hon. Gentleman's amendment goes immeasurably beyond what the Law Commission contemplated when the proposals were first put forward. It is a drastic change that the Government cannot accept.

Mr. Milian: Although the Law Commission produced a long and careful report, the report contained a number of items that I did not find plausible or convincing. Nor did the Government, because they did not follow the Law Commission's recommendation, even in the first draft of the Bill. In any case, the Bill has been considerably altered since then, so it is by no means exactly the same Bill as the Law Commission had in mind.
I accept that an exclusion order is a serious matter, but I do not believe that the Minister, who in these matters seems to be much more concerned with the property rights of the respective spouses than the way in which they are living together, has taken on board the practical consequences that I have already outlined.
First, when one reaches the stage of going to court, there has been a serious breakdown in relationships. In most such cases one spouse has already left the house. We are dealing with circumstances in which, despite the serious breakdown of relationships, the spouses are either actually or prospectively each trying to live in the matrimonial home in circumstances in which, as I say in my amendment, it would be unreasonable—particularly in view of the extent of the accommodation available—that they should live together.
In those circumstances, whether we like it or not despite property rights and the rest, the court should be able to make a judgment, one that could involve exclusion as well as restricting the occupancy rights of one spouse as against those of the other. Unless we do that—and the Minister has not answered this point—there is a huge gap in the Bill, because clause 3 does not apply in the normal circumstances of a normal matrimonial home where there is little accommodation. It certainly does not apply where there are children as well as the husband and wife living in a small matrimonial home. It becomes intolerable for the spouses to live together, not necessarily because one spouse is behaving unreasonably or is violent or potentially violent towards the other.
If the Bill asserts the right of one spouse, it inevitably denies or restricts the right of the other. If we are to do this at all, we cannot have a Bill of this nature, which will in any case apply only where there has been a serious breakdown and where the position has not been resolved, perhaps by one spouse leaving the house, leaving the other in reasonably secure enjoyment of the home.
There is no disagreement between the two sides of the House about the Bill's general intention, but to do what the Government now recommend would leave a huge gap, which would be indefensible. I am afraid that the Bill, which will never, even in the best interpretations, solve more than a small proportion of the problems that arise in the breakdown of marriage, may be rendered almost completely nugatory in a variety of cases in which its provisions should bite.
I understand that the Minister has considered the matter carefully. He is not turning down the amendments off the top of his head. I understand that there is a genuine difference of view between us on those matters. I do not believe that anything which I say now will persuade the Minister. In those circumstances, I regretfully ask my hon. Friends to vote against amendment No. 7. If it were permitted by the Chair, I would prefer it if amendment No. 31 were to be the amendment for Division. However, amendment No. 7 taken by itself, unless it is supplemented and bolstered by amendments Nos. 31 and 32, will wreck the Bill. If it is permissible, therefore, I shall allow amendment No. 7 to go through if we can divide on our our own amendment No. 31.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is in order.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 4

EXCLUSION ORDERS

Amendment proposed: No. 31, in page 6, line 39, after 'court', insert '(a)'.—[Mr. Milian.]

Question put,.That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 143.

Division No. 238]
[9.42 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dixon, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Eastham, Ken


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Ewing, Harry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Canavan, Dennis
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cook, Robin F.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cowans, Harry
Haynes, Frank


Craigen, J. M.
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hooley, Frank


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Howells, Geraint


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Lamond, James
Palmer, Arthur


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


McCartney, Hugh
Race, Reg


McElhone, Frank
Radice, Giles


McKelvey, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


McTaggart, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Marks, Kenneth
Robertson, George


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rooker, J. W.


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Maxton, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


O'Neill, Martin
Skinner, Dennis






Spriggs, Leslie
Wigley, Dafydd


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Stoddart, David
Winnick, David


Strang, Gavin
Woolmer, Kenneth


Tinn, James



Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wainwright, H. (Colne V)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Welsh, Michael
Mr. George Morton




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Lyell, Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
MacGregor, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
McQuarrie, Albert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Major, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Marlow, Tony


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Mather, Carol


Bevan, David Gilroy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Blackburn, John
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Moate, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Morgan, Geraint


Bowden, Andrew
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Mudd, David


Bright, Graham
Murphy, Christopher


Brinton, Tim
Myles, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Neale, Gerrard


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Newton, Tony


Buck, Antony
Onslow, Cranley


Budgen, Nick
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bulmer, Esmond
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Butcher, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Patten, John (Oxford)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Pollock, Alexander


Chapman, Sydney
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Rathbone, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Renton, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Cranborne, Viscount
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dickens, Geoffrey
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Dorrell, Stephen
Rossi, Hugh


Dover, Denshore
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Eggar, Tim
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Elliott, Sir William
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


Fairgrieve, Russell
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Speed, Keith


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Speller, Tony


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Spence, John


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sproat, Iain


Glyn, Dr Alan
Squire, Robin


Goodlad, Alastair
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gow, Ian
Stanley, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stevens, Martin


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Grylls, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gummer, John Selwyn
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Tebbit, Norman


Hannam,John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Haselhurst, Alan
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Hawksley, Warren
Thompson, Donald


Heddle, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hordern, Peter
Thornton, Malcolm


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Trippier, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Waddington, David


Kershaw, Anthony
Walker, B. (Perth)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Lang, Ian
Waller, Gary


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ward, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Watson, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Wells, Bowen


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wickenden, Keith


Luce, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas





Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. John Cope and


Younger, Rt Hon George
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 7, line 5, leave out '(d)' and insert '(e).'—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 6

CONTINUED EXERCISE OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS AFTER DEALING

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 9, line 6, at end insert
'but does not include a conveyance under section 80 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845; '.
This is a drafting amendment to tighten the definition of a dealing so as to exclude conveyances made as the result of a compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Dewar: I do not know whether the Minister wants to plunge into the niceties of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 but, as he knows, the transactions to which he refers are known as schedule A transactions in the local government conveyancing world. There are several other ways—under a compulsory purchase order and so on—in which a title can be taken by a local authority. I do not pretend to be skilled in these arcane mysteries, but this is a little more than a drafting amendment. It appears to be saying that an acquisition under section 80 of the 1845 Act is not a dealing under clause 6. I am not clear why it should not be a dealing and why local authorities should be given this special protection whereby they are not affected by the terms of the Bill.
Presumably, if it is not a dealing, an occupancy right would not stand against an acquisition under section 80. If that special protection is to be given to an acquisition by a local authority under section 80 of the 1845 Act, should it not be extended to other forms of local authority acquisition? I am in a bit of a haze here. The Minister will be better briefed than I am, and I look forward to a little expansion.

Mr. Rifkind: I am not better briefed than is the hon. Gentleman on the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, but I can deal with the question he raises. The whole point of consent to dealings is when the spouse who owns the house voluntarily tries to dispose of the house in such a way as to defeat the occupancy rights of the other spouse.
The amendment deals with the case of a compulsory purchase order, where it goes without saying that the consent of the seller of the house has not been obtained. Therefore, it is a dealing which is against the wishes of the owner of the house. It would be nonsensical to have an overriding occupancy right when the house was not being disposed of because the owner wished to sell and the disposal was against his wishes.
In these circumstances, as elsewhere in the clause, where the sale takes place against the wishes of the owners of the house through compulsory purchase machinery, it would clearly be inappropriate for the consent of the other party to be necessary. Otherwise, compulsory purchase orders would apply not when the owner gave his consent


but only when his wife gave consent. That would be a nonsensical outcome which I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not seek.

Mr. Dewar: I see that. If the Minister is prepared to give a blanket undertaking that all forms of compulsory acquisition and all titles taken on that compulsory basis under any enactment are covered by the drafting amendment—which seems to me a little strange—who am Ito stand against the weight of advice of his civil servants? Nevertheless, I should be interested to see how we proceed in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 9, line 30, after 'dealing', insert 'occurred or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 11.

Mr. Rifkind: These are also minor drafting amendments. They are intended to make it clear that the grant of a heritable security completed before the marriage or before the commencement of the Act is not a dealing for the purpose of clause 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 9, line 33, after 'dealing', insert 'occurred or'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 7

DISPENSATION BY COURT WITH SPOUSES'S CONSENT TO DEALING

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 10, line 37, leave out
'unless proved otherwise, be deemed to'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 13.

Mr. Rifkind: These amendments take account of the reservations about clause 7(2) expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in Committee. The new paragraph allows a non-entitled spouse to change her mind if there has been a significant change in circumstance such that it would have been unlikely that any indication of willingness of consent would have been given had the latest set of circumstances been known at the time.
This is clearly very different from the circumstances that we discussed earlier, because here there has been no sworn renunciation before a notary public. We are here dealing merely with a situation in which the spouse may have given an informal indication that she would give her consent to the disposal of the property. That is a totally different circumstance, as I know that the hon. Gentleman, being a fair man, will be entirely willing to accept.
In those circumstances, and as this was a matter raised by the hon. Gentleman himself in Committee, I have no doubt that with his customary graciousness he will be willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister is being a shade too gracious for my peace of mind. He is scrambling to distinguish this amendment from his somewhat peremptory treatment of

my earlier efforts to improve the Bill. I think that it is sufficient, however, particularly with other business pressing, to say that I regard these Government amendments—based as they are on suggestions Front the Opposition in Committee—as a considerable improvement of the Bill in a delicate area. It was far too weak in relation to the circumstances in which the courts could waive the consent of a spouse. I am glad that the position has been improved by the Minister's efforts on this occasion at least.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 10, line 39, leave out from 'where' to end of line 5 on page 11 and insert
'it appears to the court—

(a) that the non-entitled spouse has led the entitled spouse to believe that he or she would consent to the dealing and that the non-entitled spouse would not be prejudiced by any change in the circumstance of the case since such apparent consent was given: or
(b) that the entitled spouse has, having taken all reasonable steps to do so, been unable to obtain an answer to a request for consent.'.
No. 14, in page 11, line 9, leave out '(d)' and insert '(e)'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 8

TRANSFER OF TENANCY

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 14, line 26, after 'providing' insert
', subject to subsection (10A) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 35 and 36

Mr. Rifkind: These amendments all arise out of the very natural concern of the Opposition that, such has been the enormous interest by council tenants in purchasing their homes, a spouse who has acquired the tenancy of a council house through the activation of this clause might, but for the new amendments, find herself required to pay compensation to the other spouse who, having lost the right to buy the house by no longer being the tenant, the tenancy having been transferred, could be said to have suffered a financial loss.
We accept the Opposition's argument that this is not a theoretical problem but one which in the present circumstances could arise in a large number of the many thousands of cases currently being dealt with in Scotland. In those circumstances, we accept that this would be an improper area in which to expect compensation to be paid. We were therefore happy to table the amendments, as I said in Committee.

Mr. Dewar: It is always a pleasure to see the Minister enjoying himself. A small opportunity is usually abused, and again it has been, but I will content myself—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and the Belize Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Dewar: I shall continue literally in mid-sentence. I was not, however, impressed by the Minister's pleasure.
There will be a limited number of occasions on which the matter may arise. It would have been scandalous had

compensation been paid in the circumstances of the loss of a right to purchase under part I of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.
It is worthy of comment that it required an Opposition amendment to bring about that self-evident improvement in the Bill, and the Minister has nothing to congratulate himself about on that account.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 14, line 35, leave out '(d)' and insert '(e)'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Orders of the Day — Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) Bill

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 15, line 8, at end insert—
'(6A) An application for an order transferring the tenancy of a matrimonial home as set out in subsection (1) above, may be made by the landlord, and a copy of such an application shall be served on the non-entitled spouse; the court before making any order, under this subsection, shall be satisfied that the non-entitled spouse consents to such application.'.
I recognise that there are hon. Members waiting to debate faraway places, but they will have to wait a few minutes longer. The amendment is of some substance and importance, and I invite the Minister to comment substantially.
At an early stage in our proceedings this evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) looked to the Minister for an assurance that nothing in the Bill would inhibit the right of the local authority to settle by administrative means the housing problems consequent on the break-up of marriage. The Minister hurried to give that assurance, but I said at the time that I was a little sceptical about whether it was soundly based, and that is still my position.
Under clause 13,
The court may, on the application of non-entitled spouse, make an order transferring the tenancy of a matrimonial home to that spouse".
The clause provides for the possibility of compensation being paid to the entitled spouse who has lost the tenancy. We have just passed a welcome amendment that makes it clear that the compensation provision will not apply in the case of a local authority tenancy, but, of course, clause 13 will, and the vast majority of transfers made by the court under the clause will be in situations where a non-entitled spouse asks for the transfer of a council house let by a district council.
In Committee the Minister made it unequivocally clear that he envisaged only two situations. One was where there was total agreement about the transfer and the entitled spouse or tenant was saying "I am moving out, and I am perfectly happy with the prospect of the tenancy being transferred to my wife". Where there is no tension or dispute about what should happen, the Minister said that the local authority should be in a position to make the transfer.
However, the Minister said that if that were not the situation it would be wrong to expect the local authority to pass judgment. I believe that that is a fair representation of what he said. It should not try to interfere, and the matter should be left to the courts. Presumably, the non-entitled spouse, who would be most likely to be the wife, would make an application under clause 13 and the courts would decide ultimately whether the transfer should take place. No doubt that seems a neat and tidy solution to the problem. I am lure that the Minister recognises that there are complications and subtleties to the situation, yet he by-passed them in his analysis.
I am in difficulty, because I do not wish to suggest that local authorities act improperly, even from the best of motives. However, when a local authority is faced with a wife who has been put out of her house it will sometimes approach the husband, even though he has not self-evidently agreed to a transfer of tenancy. The local

authority may attempt to persuade him to agree to the transfer of that tenancy. That may involve eloquent persuasion and an element of pressure. I am prepared to face that fact. However, that pressure is applied in the public interest. The family home may be a four-apartment unit and it may be occupied solely by the entitled spouse. One man might bounce around in a house that is clearly too large for him. The wife and the children might turn up at the local district council's office—in Glasgow the relevant unit is in Keppoch Hill Road—and they might find themselves in bed and breakfast accommodation.
In many areas local authorities in that situation will go to the husband and point out that the situation is unsatisfactory. They will suggest that they are prepared to rehouse him to his advantage. In that way, the wife and children could be accommodated in a house suitable to their needs, and the husband could reach a tolerable arrangement. I make no bones about the fact that encouragement would have been given by paragraph 6 of part I of schedule 2 to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. That provision allows a spouse to be evicted after the break-up of a marriage. However, that provision will be repealed by clause 13(11).
I am slightly worried that a local authority's sensible approach might be discouraged by the Minister's suggestion that nothing can be done until the non-entitled spouse has applied for and obtained legal aid and has gone to the court under clause 13 and obtained a transfer of tenancy. Although no doubt unintentional, that may act as an incitement and an encouragement to local authorities to adopt a stand-pat attitude and to say that the situation has nothing to do with them and that they do not have to make any judgment. They may say that they have the Minister's authority and that it is up to the non-entitled spouse to seek her own solution and for the courts to give a transfer order. By waiting that length of time, the transfer order may prejudice the husband or the entitled spouse. Instead of agreeing a transfer, he may find himself the subject of a clause 13 transfer. As the Minister made abundantly clear, that person may not qualify as homeless. He may be seen as intentionally homeless or may find himself low in priority in the queue, under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
In order to redress the situation, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) and I tabled the amendment. That amendment makes it clear that under clause 13 an application may be made to the courts not only by the non-entitled spouse but by the landlord. In the vast majority of cases that means the local authority that lets the house. There may be several technical objections to the proposal. When the Minister and his advisers get to work, such objections are always multiplied.
There is an important change of emphasis in the legislation with the repeal of the temporary provisions under schedule 2 to the 1980 Act and their replacement by clause 13. Under the temporary provisions, the action in court could be taken by the landlord. Now it is left entirely to the non-entitled spouse. This is an important charge of emphasis, which underlines the kind of advice coming to the Minister and suggesting, I think wrongly, that unless there is total agreement among all the parties the local authorities should have no part to play in trying to reach an equitable and speedy arrangement. Speed is of the


essence if public finance is not to be wasted and, much more important, bitterness and social dislocation are not to set in.
I hope that the Minister understands the logic lying behind the amendment and can perhaps say something more encouraging in terms of looking to local authorities for an enlightened, active and flexible approach to these problems.
Clause 18 deals with the attitude of cohabiting couples. It has been suggested to me that cohabiting couples may be at a disadvantage when it comes to transfers of tenancy under clause 13. I accept that sections 13 and 14 are listed in clause 18(3) as sections that are applicable in a situation where a cohabitee has an occupancy order under clause 18(1). Would that right to transfer of tenancy give the transfer only for the period for which the occupancy right has been granted for the court under clause 18(1), or is it the case that once having got an occupancy right under clause 18(1) and therefore qualified for the use of a transfer of tenancy application under clause 13, such transfer, if granted, would be permanent, even though the occupancy rights were only transitory and limited under clause 18?
I may be making a difficulty where none exists. It is, however, a matter that has been raised with me. I was not happy about the matter. There may be difficulty over whether the courts, in exercising discretion under clause 13, will be as happy to do so in the case of cohabitees as in the case of married people. Many of the rights under clause 18 for cohabitees are limited to three months or six months and require recourse to the courts for renewal. What is the position on the transfer of tenancy? Are we, in one bound, free from restrictions, or do they still apply in that case?
I should, be grateful if the Minister would deal with the general point represented by amendment No. 34, and also the particular point to which I have referred.

Mr. Rifkind: I refer, first, to the question of cohabiting couples who can have the benefits of this clause. According to my understanding of the Bill, the tenancy, once transferred, would have been transferred. There is no power within the clause to transfer the tenancy for a limited period. Once the tenancy has been transferred, the new tenant has all the rights of the previous tenant including security of tenure, and so on, subject to such further statutory procedures as are provided. I should have thought that in a situation where the cohabiting partner had been given only a three-month or a six-month period the Court of Session might be reluctant to transfer the tenancy.
A situation might arise where the cohabiting partner was granted an initial occupancy right for a three or six-month period and the other partner indicated that if this was the position he had no longer any interest in the property and might therefore not oppose any transfer of tenancy. In those circumstances it might be in everyone's interests to agree to the transfer of the tenancy. That is a matter for the court to take into account. My understanding is that if it did believe that the circumstances justified a transfer it would be an appropriate transfer and could not be for a period of weeks or months. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act tenants are given security of tenure and their occupancy and tenancy rights can be interfered with

only in certain circumstances which are relevant to the interests of the landlord, such as non-payment of rent or the non-fulfilment of certain conditions.
10.15 pm
If circumstances justify a change in tenancy and do not relate to the interests of the landlord but arise purely from matrimonial discord between the tenant and his wife or her husband, it is not appropriate for the local authority to be asked to exercise judgment. It is not a responsibility that local authorities want or should have thrust upon them. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the provisions in the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act allowing the local authority to transfer tenancies were introduced on the basis stated at the time—that that was purely an interim measure, which would be enforced only until the Law Commission's recommendations could be enacted. When the Law Commission's proposals are put in statutory form that will remove the need for reform of that kind.
The amendment gives the local authority the right to seek the transfer of the tenancy, but only with the consent of the non-entitled spouse. If the consent of the non-entitled spouse is forthcoming, it is more sensible that he or she should make the initial application. The landlord's interest would arise only on non-payment of rent by a tenant who had ceased to occupy the property. If there is non-payment of rent, a local authority already has the right to bring the tenancy to an end under the Tenants Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act, and that is a material consideration that justifies an end to security of tenure. Therefore, the interests of the local authority are already fully protected.
On that basis, the hon. Gentleman's amendment is unnecessary in the interests of the landlord. The non-entitled spouse is not a responsibility on which one should expect the local authority to sit in judgment. A local authority is not familiar with the circumstances of a matrimonial dispute. The basis of the Bill is to enable the courts, which have experience in these matters and which are the proper judicial body to determine such issues, to come to an appropriate decision in each case.

Mr. Dewar: I do not want to pursue this matter for any length of time. There are circumstances in which local authorities have a genuine interest in what happens to a house that is subject to matrimonial tension, where a non-entitled spouse is in the street and, therefore, is a financial charge under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and where, as a result, there may be children at risk. The Minister has said repeatedly that local authorities do not want any part of this.
As I promised in Committee, I have taken soundings. I spoke today to a number of senior people in one of the largest district councils in Scotland. Those people made it abundantly clear that they felt it was their duty to seek an active solution to such problems. The provision that the Minister keeps saying proudly is only temporary in schedule 2 to the 1980 Act is of considerable help in achieving that.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct. That is why that provision was introduced. It is an improvement on the previous position, where there was no power, as the Bill was not on the statute book. We are considering what will arise when the Bill is on the statute book and when there is a proper way for the courts to consider the occupancy rights in an individual house. At present, local authorities are continually under pressure from spouses


and there is no alternative way of solving that sort of matrimonial problem. Now there will be a much more satisfactory alternative.

Mr. Dewar: There is a difference between occupancy rights and tenancy, which is dealt with in the amendment. Occupancy rights are a matter between parties, but the landlord has an interest in a tenancy. It is the landlord who enters into a tenancy agreement and retains ownership of the property.
I am alarmed that those authorities which have taken an advanced position have been prepared to go to an entitled spouse and to ask him or her to move. For the reasons that I outlined in my opening remarks that may not be in the interests of an entitled spouse. However, it is in the interests of a non-entitled spouse who is homeless with children and it is in the interests of society to see the right unit in the family house that is far too big for the entitled spouse on his own. In such circumstances we should encourage rather than discourage local authorities to take an active role.
I am alarmed because clause 13 takes the local authority out of the process. That seems to be wrong. The Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980—and this is real praise for that legislation from me—has a lot to be said for it in that respect. It preserves the local authorities' position in terms not of occupancy rights but of tenancy rights. It provides leverage with which to achieve a socially just solution which prejudices no one.
The Minister's po-faced attitude when he argues that the courts must decide will encourage people to take a restrictive and stick-in-the-mud attitude to their responsibilities. It may also mean lengthy delays before there is an equitable solution for the non-entitled spouse, who will have to obtain legal advice and legal aid and petition the courts for a clause 13 order. I do not insist on the wording of the amendment, but I had hoped that the Minister would give it a more sympathetic hearing.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 15, line 40 after 'providing', insert
',subject to subsection (10A) below,'.
No. 36, in page 16, line 22, at end insert—
'(10A) Where the matrimonial home is a secure tenancy within the meaning of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, no account shall be taken, in assessing the amount of any compensation to be awarded under subsection (1) or (9) above, of the loss, by virtue of the transfer of the tenancy of the home, of a right to purchase the home under Part I of that Act.'.—[Mr.Rifkind.]

Clause 15

ATTACHMENT OF POWERS OF ARREST TO MATRIMONIAL INTERDICTS

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 17, line 14, at end insert
and such power shall be effective even if there has been a failure to deliver a copy of the said interdict to a chief constable in terms of subsections (4) or (5) below.
This matter came up in Committee. The amendment deals with a matrimonial interdict with a power of arrest attached to it. Clause 15(4) and (5) provides for the intermission of a chief constable of that interdict.
I wondered in Committee whether a failure to intimate to a chief constable in terms of the statute would mean that all that flowed from arrest would be invalidated. The

Minister said that he did not think that that was so. He made a fair point about the distinction between the wording in the statute about the duty to intimate to the non-applicant spouse and to the chief constable. He seemed to suggest that my proposal was unnecessary because such circumstances could not invalidate the subsequent processes when an arrest had taken place.
The Minister also said that it was unlikely that there would be an arrest if there were no intermission. I can envisage an inexperienced constable arresting a person, having in mind not an interdict but the possibility of a criminal prosecution for assault or breach of the peace.
If no proceedings by a procurator fiscal followed that complaint but his attention was drawn to the fact that there was an interdict, the question that I raised would become real. Would the petition to the court and the two days detention to allow interdict proceedings to take place be invalidated by the failure to carry out intermission under clause 15(4) and (5)? There is a little confusion.
The Minister's arguments in Committee pointed two ways. I tabled the amendment to clarify the position and to make it clear that the failure to intimate to a chief constable is not a legal defect. I assume that that is the Minister's intention. There is a grey area which should be made clear in the statute.

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. It is correct that such an arrest would not be invalid simply because intimation had not been made to the chief constable. As long as the power of arrest had been attached to in interdict, if that arrest subsequently flowed, even although intimation had not taken place, although there might be cause for a reprimand against the individual responsible for failing to intimate, it would in no way invalidate the arrest itself in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. Dewar: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

PROCEDURE AFTER ARREST

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 18, line 17, leave out 'released' and insert 'liberated'.
This is purely a drafting amendment to achieve the consistent use of the word "liberated" throughout clauses 16 and 17. I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move Government amendment No. 19, in page 19, line 21, at end insert—
'(ia) the statement referred to in paragraph (a)(ii) above discloses a prima facie breach of interdict by the non-applicant spouse.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22.

Mr. Rifkind: This amendment, together with the other amendments in the group, responds to the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in Committee, when he suggested that the sheriff should be satisfied that a prima facie case for breach of interdict existed. This seems a sensible, further safeguard against


an arrested spouse being unreasonably detained for up to a further two days. In those circumstances, we felt it appropriate to respond to what was a constructive and helpful suggestion by the hon. Gentleman. I am therefore happy to commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Dewar: I feel rather a heel in rising to make a slight reservation about the amendment. I am grateful for the amendment, but it is the last survivor of a large number of attempts that I made to improve the clause. I hope that the Minister will explain one small point to me. When I suggested that we should give the sheriff the test of a prima facie breach of interdict I thought of it as an alternative to clause 17(5)(b)(i), which says that
proceedings for breach of interdict will be taken in respect of those facts and circumstances".
I accept that a subsequent amendment takes out
in respect of those facts and circumstances",
but the test of the sheriff deciding that proceedings for breach of interdict will be taken survives. I should have thought that that should be dropped when the new test was put in. Why should the sheriff have to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case and that proceedings are likely to be taken, given the difficulty that was much canvassed in Committee, that he can hardly be expected to put himself into the minds of the applicant spouse and his or her advisers and that they may have no part to play in the proceedings? It must be an act of faith on his part to assume that there will be proceedings. What he can more usefully decide is whether there is a prima facie case for breach of interdict on the facts that have been presented to him. I am curious to know why we did not get rid of the present subsection (1) and merely substitute the prima facie test. That would have received a warmer welcome from me.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's qualified welcome of our acceptance of his proposed amendment. I agree that in the vast majority of cases what he suggests would be sufficient. However, there is a possibility that in certain circumstances, although it might appear to the sheriff that there was a prima facie case for such an action being brought, nevertheless there is evidence to indicate that the spouse who might have brought it has no intention of doing so. If it was clear, it would be quite unfair to the husband if he was detained because there was prima facie evidence of a breach but it was quite clear that no one intended to raise the action. The purpose of the two days' potential detention is to give the other party time to raise such an action if that party wishes to do so. If there is evidence to make the sheriff think that she has no intention of doing that, it would be quite unfair to the husband if this power were exercised. In those circumstances, it seems sensible to retain the provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 19, line 23, leave out
'in respect of those facts and circumstances'.

No. 21, in page 19, line 30, leave out 'sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of.

No. 22, in page 19, line 31, leave out 'do' and insert 'does'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 18

OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OF COHABITING COUPLES

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 20, line 8, leave out
'no such period exceeding 6 months'
and insert
'and the duration of such period may be unlimited or limited, at the discretion of the court'.
The purpose of the amendment is to give more discretionary power to the courts for the period for which they may grant occupancy rights to the applicant, where he or she is not the spouse of the other person but has been living with him or her—in other words, the case of cohabitees. It is only fair to distinguish between couples cohabiting on a casual or temporary basis and couples who are cohabiting on a permanent basis but who, for some reason or other, have not formalised the relationship by marriage. Some people may have been living with each other for much longer than some married couples. It is unfair that the applicant cohabitee should be treated in an inferior manner compared with the applicant spouse.
In some cases the tenancy may have been granted to one of the cohabitees because of the circumstances of the applicant cohabitee For example, a tenancy may have been granted to the male cohabitee because the woman with whom he was living had children either from a previous relationship or from his relationship with her. It would be unfair in such circumstances for the woman and children to be in danger either of being evicted or of their security within the matrimonial home being inferior to the security of a married woman.
Some cases have been outlined to me. A woman in a woman's aid refuge had lived with a man for 17 years and had had two children, now aged 15 and 16. If the courts were not allowed discretion to extend her occupancy rights beyond three or six months—the Bill stipulates an initial period of three months with possible follow-on periods of a maximum of six months each—the woman and her children would, every three or six months, be faced with possible eviction from the home in which they had lived for 17 years.
To give some idea of the scale on which the difficulty may exist, I understand that in Dundee from January 1980 to April 1981 141 women sought refuge. Of those, 31 had been cohabiting with violent men, but were not married to them. On average, the women have two children each. Concern has been expressed about the unfairness of the women's position. Those figures relate only to the Dundee area. Imagine them multiplied throughout Scotland. We would be talking about a significant number of women and an even more significant number of children. It is incumbent upon the Minister to think about that problem when he deals with the amendment.
There is a precedent for the State's treating men and women who are cohabiting as though they were married, even when the relationship has not been formalised. I refer to the social security regulations. The supplementary benefit leaflet No. 7 called "Living together as husband and wife" states:
When an unmarried couple live together as husband and wife, they are treated as husband and wife when a claim is made for supplementary benefit … It is usually clear whether two people who live in the same household are living together as husband and wife.


The practical difficulties do not seem to be insurmountable. If a social security officer or supplementary benefit officer is given discretion to decide whether a man and woman are living together as husband and wife, why cannot the courts be given a similar discretion in respect of the occupancy rights of a cohabiting couple?
When I raised this issue in Committee I detected a reasonable degree of sympathy from the Minister. He said that the Government would consider the Opposition's argument. I am disappointed that he does not have a similar amendment on the Order Paper to extend the discretion of the courts rather than laying down rigid statutory limits.
My suggestion is not exactly the same as the one that I made in Committee. I shall be prepared to compromise and to stand by the initial period being not in excess of three months as provided in the Bill. I am suggesting that thereafter any extension should be either limited or unlimited. If there is a limitation, it should be within the discretion of the courts. If the Minister were to accept this modest amendment it would be of great benefit to many people, including children who may be threatened with a great deal of insecurity when it comes to establishing their rights of occupancy in the matrimonial home.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has argued much as he did in Committee, that the position of a cohabiting partner may be such for it not to be unreasonable for occupancy rights in the matrimonial home to be extended indefinitely, especially when there are children of the relationship. We have considered the arguments that the hon. Gentleman advanced. They would have great substance if we had accepted the original Law Commission recommendation, which indicated that a cohabiting partner should have an extremely limited occupancy right and that when a fixed period had elapsed there would be no question but that that person would have to give up the right of occupancy and the house would revert to the other partner.
We accept the hon. Gentleman's reasoning, which leads us to think that that recommendation would be unfair, especially when there are children of the relationship. We replaced the Law Commission's recommendation with a much more flexible arrangement, which enables the court to extend the initial occupancy right to successive periods of six months without limit. If there were circumstances of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has postulated it might be that the occupancy right should be extended again and again, perhaps for several years for as long as the circumstances were relevant.
If parties have decided not to get married they have the right to exercise that free choice. The Bill is concerned primarily with the circumstances that arise when two spouses find that the legal arrangement into which they entered has broken apart and it is necessay to apportion rights between the spouses. It is broadly accepted by all concerned that it would not be appropriate to have exactly the same rights and obligations for cohabiting partners as for those who are spouses. We have gone a considerable way in the direction that the hon. Gentleman seeks, and I hope that that will be acceptable to him.

Mr. Canavan: The amendment does not suggest that there should be absolute parity of treatment between cohabiting partners and married partners. That was

roughly what I suggested in Committee, but I am going some way to meeting the Minister. It is most unsatisfactory to expect the applicant cohabitee to go to the court every six months to try to obtain an extension of the occupancy right. That discontinuity must be intolerable. Even if in only a minority of cases, surely the right should be extended indefinitely.

Mr. Rifkind: No. The whole basis on which certain rights have been given to cohabiting partners is that there may be a need to have a reasonable period in which to find alternative accomodation. if a spouse is having difficulty in finding it, it is right that he or she should return to the court and say "I still have been unable to find alternative accommodation"—after six months or nine months—"and I therefore wish the occupancy right to continue". The court has complete discretion to grant that right.
We are not dealing with two legally married people who have ceased living together and for whom a permanent new arrangement is considered appropriate. If persons have in mind a permanent relationship, they will enter a state of marriage. That is how society deals with that sort of problem. If they choose not to do so, the problem is different. We are dealing with the reasonable requirements of a cohabiting partner, particularly where there are children, to ensure that accommodation is available to him or her until alternative accommodation is provided. The Bill in its present form fully meets that requirement.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No 42, in page 20, line 15, leave out from beginning to "both" in line 16, and insert—
'While an order granting an application under subsection (1) above or an extension of such an order is in force, or where.'.
This amendment also deals with cohabiting partners. I am sure that it will be welcomed by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) as well as by other hon. Members.
Concern was expressed in Committee about what would happen if a cohabiting partner had been given an occupancy right for three months or six months but during that period the other partner sought to dispose of the house to a third party. I was asked whether that would in effect frustrate the occupancy right. Clearly there would be a great temptation to defeat the occupancy right in that way, if such a power were available.
The Bill already contains a limited power to seek an interdict in certain circumstances, but on reflection the Government think it appropriate to make the position much clearer and to provide that where an occupancy right has been granted to a cohabiting partner clause 6, which deals with disposals to third parties, should apply in much the same way as it would apply to an entitled spouse.

Mr. Dewar: I welcome the amendment, which meets a point that I, among others, raised in Committee. It is important that a cohabiting partner who has obtained an occupancy right under the provisions of clause 18 should have the protection that is now accorded to him or her. I am glad that the Minister has reconsidered his suggestion that there were other remedies, such as interdicts. It seems to me that they were not adequate.
Although it is a difficult balance to strike, and although I would not have gone as far as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), I believe that the three-month period followed by six months as a


maximum before one must return to the courts is inelastic and will give an air of impermanency; it will invite the courts to look upon any such occupancy right as impermanent. In the changing social climate, in which cohabitation over many years is becoming more common, we may want in future to take a more accommodating attitude.
10.45 pm
The amendment would presumably preclude any dealing in the property during the period in which an occupancy right had been allowed to the cohabiting person. What worries me is the situation in which there is an occupancy right of six months and that is entered into on the basis that vacant possession will be given at the end of that six months' period, when there is the possibility of an extension for a further period of six months and further extensions beyond that.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to comment on this matter. I hope that it will not be possible for the owner of the property to defeat a claim for an extension of occupancy rights by his co-habitee on the basis that he had entered into missives which would come into effect or could be purified only by the eviction of the co-habitee. No doubt the court might disregard that on the balance of convenience. We return to the recurring argument of the evening whether one can trust the courts to be reasonable, in which I, rather surprisingly, ended up as the defender of court discretion. It might be useful if the Minister could confirm that the existence of missives should not be seen as closing the possibility of an extension of the six months' period. I generally welcome the amendment.

Mr. Rifkind: It is for the court to consider, when a request for continuation of occupancy rights has been put

before it, the relative hardship which would apply to either of the partners in the event of such an order being granted. I have no doubt that the wish of one partner to sell the house would be a relevant consideration, but not necessarily an overriding one, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 20, line 30, at end insert—
'in section 6, subsections (1) to (3);
in section 7, subsections (1) to (4), but only where both partners of a cohabiting couple are entitled, or permitted by a third party, to occupy the house where they are cohabiting;
sections 8 and 9;'.
This amendment is consequential on the additional protection being given to a cohabiting partner during the period of an order giving him or her occupancy rights. I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY IN RELATION TO DIVISION AND SALE

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 21, line 31, after 'including', insert '(a)'.
No. 45, in page 21, line 32, after 'Act', insert; and
(b) whether the spouse bringing the action offers or has offered to make available to the other spouse any suitable alternative accomodation,'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Belize Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Belize Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I believe that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if I were briefly to introduce the Bill and give something of the history leading up to this evening's debate and come back at the end to answer any questions which hon. Members may wish to ask.
As the House knows, the purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the attainment of independence by Belize within the Commonwealth and for connected matters of nationality and the consequential modification of other enactments. I believe that it will commend itself to all parts of the House.
Belize, or British Honduras, as it was formerly known, became a British colony in 1862. However, the history of British connection goes back much further, to settlements established by shipwrecked British sailors in the mid-seventeenth century. These were later augmented by disbanded British soldiers and sailors after the capture of Jamaica in 1665. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the settlement was subject to frequent attack from the surrounding Spanish settlements, but the settlers eventually obtained by treaty the recognition of their rights to engage in the logwood industry.
After the decisive battle of St. George's Cay in 1798, de facto British control was established, leading to full sovereignty. The border with Guatemala was agreed by treaty in 1859, but, as most hon. Members will be aware, Guatemala later reverted to a claim for sovereignty over the whole of Belize on the allegation that we had failed to build a cart road.
The continuing controversy over this has bedevilled our relations with Guatemala and in later years has greatly hindered the constitutional development of Belize. The consequences of this dispute have been that British troops have been garrisoned in Belize for quite some time. Progress has been slow—in fact, non-existent—towards independence. Belize became fully internally self-governing in 1963, and the belief at that time was that it was about to proceed to independence.
However, 18 years have gone by and it is not until tonight that we are able to bring the Bill before the House. Perhaps the only satisfactory consequence of this unhappy delay has been that Belizeans have become adept at managing their own affairs. They have developed a constitution and a political system that are well proven and which will carry them forward into independence as a mature political society.
As hon. Members know, successive Governments have tried to negotiate a settlement of the dispute with Guatemala. Indeed, my predecessor, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), will know all too well

how difficult that is. We tried, and for two years we have been engaged in hard negotiations with Guatemala, with Belizean representatives present. We have made it clear throughout those negotiations that we sought a negotiated settlement but that independence could not be delayed for ever and that we would comply with the United Nations resolution that independence would be granted to Belizebefore the end of this year's United Nations General Assembly.
It was, therefore, a great pleasure to us all that we got as far as signing the heads of agreement with Guatemala at Carlton Gardens on 11 March this year. Although those heads of agreement were not a legal treaty, they formed the basis upon which a better relationship could be established between Belize and Guatemala, the Guatemalan claim to Belize territory could be dropped, and various economic and transport co-operative efforts could be launched.
It is still necessary to turn those heads of agreement into a treaty or treaties. The first series of meetings in May succeeded in turning a large bulk of the heads of agreement into treaty language, and the next round will start next Monday between ourselves, the Belizeans and the Guatemalans. I approach next week's talks with the greatest of hope for success. I am sure that if all parties to those negotiations concentrate on their determination to find a solution, we will be able to do so not too long from now.
The points that remain, although tricky and difficult, are not many, and are not of such importance as that of ending the dispute and setting a secure foundation for future progress for Belize.
As hon. Members will know, there was some political turmoil in Belize after the publication of the heads of agreement. I shall not go deeply into that because it is now quiet in that country. But I believe it was to do with the suddenness of the progress made as a result of the heads of agreement and the impending progress towards independence. It was compounded by fears about the security situation after independence as well as by a number of misapprehensions. I hope that it will be possible to assuage those misapprehensions.
The Premier of Belize, Mr. George Price, has provided an opportunity for a referendum on the treaties with Guatemala, if and when they are signed, before independence. All going well, that referendum should take place in August. I believe that that has given those who are worried the opportunity to express their fears in debate and later at the ballot box.
For the first time, therefore, there is now the real prospect of Belize proceeding to independence free from external threat.
The outcome of the forthcoming treaty negotiations with Guatemala will clearly influence the defence provisions that will need to be made. I wish, however, to make it clear now that Her Majesty's Government intend to make arrangements for the future security of Belize which will be appropriate to the circumstances, whatever they may be.
Hon. Members will know that a constitutional conference was held at Marlborough House from 6 to 14 April, at which the principles of the constitution which Belize will take into independence were agreed. The report of the conference was published as Cmnd. 8245. It is a matter for regret that the Belizean Opposition chose not to attend the conference, but the Belizean public had been


given ample opportunity to study the Belize Government's proposals before the conference and a number of written submissions from organisations and individuals in Belize were tabled at the conference and taken fully into account. We are satisfied that proper opportunity was given to individuals and groups in Belize freely to express their views on the Belize Government's proposals and thus to play a part in the shaping of the new constitution.
I shall be happy to send any hon. Member a copy of the draft constitution, but I must stress that it is still a draft, as a few amendments are still under discussion with Belizean Ministers who are at present in this country for that purpose. Any amendments made will, of course, be consistent with the report of the constitutional conference.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the Minister know of any precedent for an independence Bill being brought before the House for all its stages so early in negotiations, before all the details of independence have been settled?

Mr. Ridley: As I said to the hon. Gentleman—and I intended to return to his point—Belize is to receive its independence by the end of this year. It has gone through all the proper stages of a constitutional conference and an opportunity for the House to debate the legislation. There is nothing exceptional about this. It is a perfectly standard way of proceeding. Indeed, Belizeans may well feel that it has been held up for 18 years.
The fact that there is a dispute with Guatemala, which we very much hope will be settled, is something which has been going parallel with Belize's progress to independence since we first embarked upon trying to solve this problem.

Dr. M. S. Miller: How can the Minister project his sights into the future and say that Belize will be granted independence before the end of the year when the result of the referendum may produce a state of affairs in which it is not possible to proceed to independence?

Mr. Ridley: Both hon. Members have slightly pre-empted something that I wished to say.
The referendum is not about independence. It is on the question of whether the treaty with Guatemala, if there is one, shall be approved. The implications of that are entirely to do with security. Clearly, the voting in the referendum will have great security implications. Nevertheless, it does not affect independence. As I have said, we have given the Belize Government an undertaking that we shall comply with the United Nations resolution.
The draft constitution contains comprehensive provisions for the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms that will be especially entrenched and other institutional provisions that will essentially preserve the basic institutions and procedures to which Belizeans are accustomed and which have served Belize well.
Belize will be a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen as Head of State. There will continue to be a bicameral legislature to which the Prime Minister and his Cabinet will be responsible. The electoral system will be founded on universal adult suffrage, and there will be provision for securing the independence of the judiciary and for final appeal in important cases to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I am confident that the constitution will meet with general approval in Belize. The Bill confers power to provide a constitution by Order in Council, the constitution to come into effect on independence day.
Referring to the points made by the two hon. Gentlemen, the Bill is only an enabling Bill. Independence can be granted only by an order made under the Act. It is not our intention to make that order and set a date for independence until the treaties have either been successfully negotiated or perhaps—I very much hope not—have failed, and then, of course, the referendum has to take place. It would be improvident to set a date at this moment until we know precisely when those processes will be complied with.
However, the Belizean Government have high hopes of getting the stages completed quickly, and would like to proceed to independence as soon as may be thereafter. It is likely that the independence date will be during the long Recess. Therefore, it seemed right to present the Bill to the House so that we have power to grant independence to Belize during the recess. Otherwise, there might be an unnecessarily long delay until the Bill could be enacted, perhaps in November.
In any event, as I said, we intend to make sure that independence is granted before the end of the year, but I am sure that the House will agree that it would be a mistake to prejudice our chances of securing an agreement with Guatemala by rushing the independence date before the negotiations are complete.

Mr. Christopher Price: What is the most recent precedent for independence being given by a Bill in this way but made subject to an order?

Mr. Ridley: The country last granted independence by order was St. Vincent, in one of the associated States, under the West Indies Act.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Belize has waited 18 years. Why is it necessary to rush the matter through now, when there is an important hurdle to be overcome in the form of the referendum? Why has this method been chosen? There will be no question of a debate or discussion in Parliament. The order can be laid during the recess. Indeed, I believe that that is the intention. Why could not Belize wait a little longer?

Mr. Ridley: Because the Premier of Belize has high hopes of achieving his independence in September, and he has good reason for wishing to do that. I very much hope that he will succeed. However, before we can be sure of that, we have to complete the treaties and hold the referendum, so I cannot definitely tell the House that that will be possible.
I have explained the problem, and shall do so again if hon. Gentlemen want me to later in the debate. I believe that we should meet the eventuality in a standard form, which is to take an enabling Bill, such as the West Indies Act, and make an order under it when the time is ripe.
I shall not go through the Bill in greater detail. The standard provisions about nationality are contained in the later clauses. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has tabled an amendment to them.
The Bill is a standard independence Bill. I assure the House that there is nothing unusual in its provisions. It only remains for me to wish Belize all good fortune in the future and to say that it has richly deserved its independence after such a long and frustrating delay.

Mr. Giles Radice: The Labour Party is strongly in favour of independence for Belize, partly because we are in favour of independence for British dependencies wherever that is a practical possibility and partly because of the strength of the Belizean case.
As hon. Members know, Belize has been self-governing since 1964. It has proved itself an extremely effective and politically stable democracy, with regular and free elections. If the literacy rate is a test of fitness for democracy, Belize has one of the highest in the area. Indeed, it has a 90 per cent. literacy rate. Most importantly, the Government of Belize are strongly in favour of independence and won the November 1979 election on an independence platform. Clearly the Government have a mandate from the electorate for independence.
Independence also has strong support from the international community. There have been several United Nations' resolutions in support of Belize's right to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity. The latest UN resolution was passed on 11 November 1980. It specifically called on Britain—there were seven abstentions but no votes against—to convene a constitutional conference to bring Belize to early independence and at the latest before the end of the 1981 session. Therefore, the UN considers the matter to be urgent.
The constitutional conference has been held successfully. Therefore, I am sure that no hon. Member will stand in the way of Belize's independence. We should warmly. welcome the emergence of a new, independent and democratic nation in Central America. In that area democracy is by no means the norm.
The Minister must answer several questions, some of which have already been raised by Opposition Members. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may have tried to answer my first question already. What is the timetable? What is the date for independence? Can the Minister keep the September deadline? What is the relationship between independence and settlement with Guatemala? Must settlement come, before independence? What is the relationship between independence and the referendum promised by the Government of George Price? What happens if the referendum turns down the settlement? Does that affect independence?
The Foreign Secretary was ambiguous about this matter when he spoke in the other place on 12 May. I should be grateful if the Minister would clear up the matter. In a sense, the Minister has already answered my next question. Will he confirm that hon. Members will not have another opportunity to debate this subject before independence? The question of nationality arises. Can the Minister guarantee that the Bill will not create any so-called "overseas citizens", as defined by the British Nationality Bill? That Bill has disturbed many Opposition Members. Will the Bill, on independence day, create either citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies or citizens of Belize? We hope that there will not be any third category. We believe that the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)—has given that assurance, but we should like to hear it confirmed.
As we all know, and as the Minister remarked, the main reason for the long delay in the achievement of

independence has been the long-running dispute with Guatemala. All hon. Members hoped that following the heads of agreement in March we would quickly be able to proceed to a settlement that would guarantee the security of an independent Belize. However, I think I am right in saying that since then the talks have got off to rather a slow start. I believe, indeed, that the negotiating session in London last month had to be cancelled. It would be helpful if the Minister were to make a fuller statement on the current state of negotiations and the problems involved. How far have the Government progressed towards achieving a settlement?
It would also be helpful if the Minister could say something about the security issue. This is obviously crucial to the future of an independent Belize. Given the difference in size and resources and, dare I say, the type of regime between Belize and Guatemala, and given the United Kingdom's obligation to an independent Belize, the Belizeans are entitled to ask for assurances from this country on security.
I underline the support of the Opposition for and our welcome to an independent Belize. We wish it well. However, it is only realistic to accept that it will become independent in a tough and difficult world. It will continue to need assistance from this country, both economically and in terms of security for a considerable time. It is essential that we should pledge our continuing commitment not only in a moral sense but in a practical way to the integrity of an independent Belize.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: The road to Belizean independence has been long and tortuous, not least because of the fundamental problems relating to another road—that for carts—which has led to difficulty between Guatemala and Britain in consequence of the 1859 treaty. However, tonight sees an historic step along the way to that final destination, brought about as a result of the determination shown by Her Majesty's Government and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in particular, as well as that of the people of Belize and their elected representatives.
For some 18 years, the former colony has enjoyed full internal self-government as well as certain delegated responsibility in the conduct of its external affairs. The Bill, when it is enacted, will pave the way for Belize's independence within the Commonwealth. It is a particular source of pleasure that links between Britain and the new nation will thus be maintained and, it is to be hoped, strengthened.
Following the long association of our two countries, the spirit of parliamentary democracy has been inculcated in the political system and the governmental institutions of Belize. This most valuable of assets must be carefully protected in an area unfortunately renowned for dictatorship and violent upheaval. It is vital, therefore, in the transitional period to full nationhood, that the defence of the new State should be safeguarded by British involvement where necessary.
The many great opportunities for an independent Belize are considerable. So, too, are the many great challenges. As the Belizean national anthem, "Land of the Gods", reminds us,
this tranquil haven of democracy
is one where


nature has blessed thee with wealth untold.
I am certain that the House will join me in wishing the new nation of Belize every success and good fortune on its coming independence.

Dr. M. S. Miller: It is always a pleasure to welcome another example of decolonisation and to look forward to the birth of another completely independent nation.
As a country that, for many hundreds of years has had colonies, we have obligations towards our colonies. Those obligations do not stop when the process of independence begins. We have to consider the benefits and advantages to the colony in the immediate term after independence and in the longer term, but not with a view to obstructing that path or with an intention of preventing the colony from becoming independent. We must collaborate with the colony to decide the most advantageous moment for the colony to have its independence.
Any benefit to the mother country at this stage should be cast aside. The benefit should accrue to the colony. We should not consider ourselves but other interests in that connection. There must be full agreement with all the people of the country.
The threat from Guatemala has been mentioned. I associate myself entirely with the comments of and the welcome given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice). He also mentioned Guatemala.
The evil of Guatemala's intentions towards Belize is by no means dispelled by the sort of blandishments that Guatemala has been making in recent months, The people of Belize have every right to be suspicious of the intentions of Guatemala upon her borders. The people of Belize also have much justification for their concern that some deals may be being done which are not to the long-term, medium-term or short-term advantage of the country when it becomes independent. I make no judgment on that.

Mr. Ridley: What does the hon. Gentleman mean? Is he suggesting that a country which signs a document containing heads of agreements to bury its claim and to live in peace with its neighbour has a more sinister motive than if it had not done so? Surely he must be aware that the logic of what he is saying is that the treaty, if there is one, or the heads of agreement should be welcomed as a step in the right direction rather than suspected, as he seems to suggest.

Dr. Miller: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has directed my attention to that. I make no judgment on whether the suspicions of the people of Belize are entirely justified. Nevertheless, one has to take cognisance of the experiences that they have had of that type of regime. My hon. Friend, with some diffidence, asked whether he dare mention the type of regime that Guatemala is. We know that it is an unstable, dictatorial regime whose views can change at the whim of the dictatorial power that rules the country.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the instability of Guatemala, which will surely move in the democratic way in which Latin America is almost certain to go in the next few decades,

it is one thing to welcome an agreement but another to allow a Bill to pass through all its stages at 11 o'clock at night and to be implemented by an order at the whim of the Government in the middle of the summer holidays?

Dr. Miller: I agree. My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks. It is disconcerting that the Bill should be handled in this way. If it goes through tonight, as it will, that will be the end of it for Parliament. We shall not be able to have a debate or make an amendment. An Order in Council will be laid before Parliament. Neither a negative nor a positive procedure is attached to it. The procedure leaves us impotent. It is hopeless to try to argue further.
There will be a referendum. That is good. However, if the heads of agreement or the treaty proposed by the Belize Government is not accepted by the people of Belize there will be a different ball game. The Minister should explain what the Government's view would be in such a situation.
I do not dispute that independence was an issue in the election less than two years ago. Independence has been an issue in Belize for the past 18 years. Elections have been won on that issue. Everyone in Belize wants independence. However, they are worried about the concessions that the country will have to make so that Britain can shed almost its last remaining colony in the area.
Will the Minister take seriously—I ask no more—the possibility of there being a strong voice in Belize which says "We want independence but we want to be certain that when it is granted it will not be at the expense of parts of our territory which have always been our territory"? They want such an assurance. If the Minister can give that assurance, the controversy surrounding the independence question will be removed and everyone in Belize will welcome it.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I shall be brief and will not weary the House with history. I congratulate the Minister because he has done an enormous amount of work to bring about a solution between Guatemala and Belize.
A resolution by the United Nations puts an obligation on us to give independence. Independence was endorsed by the Belize electorate almost two years ago.
The important thing is that the Bill has been brought forward. The fear expressed by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) concerning the security of the people of Belize after independence is the only worry that remains. My hon. Friend made it clear that a British presence will be there as long as is necessary—I think that those were his words. That is the one thing that worries the people of Belize. As long as they know that the British presence will be there—schedule 2 of the Bill clearly says that we shall be allowed to do that—and as long as they know that they will get assistance in other forms from this country, not only will the Bill be implemented but the heads of agreement can be made.
Underlying everything is the continued assistance to Belize from this country, and, even more important, the knowledge that Great Britain and its forces would be behind the people of Belize in the event of any emergency. As long as that is understood, the danger from Guatemala will to a large extent be removed.
I wish my hon. Friend every success in the last part of the negotiations—the finalisation of the heads of


agreement or the treaty, whatever it is called—and I hope that he will be able to bring them to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: I declare a four and a half year interest in the problems of Belize in the negotiations with the Guatemalan Government and in the whole dilemma of the desire to achieve independence for Belize and to have a secure future, which lay with a settlement with Guatemala.
During those four and a half years I came to two simple conclusions. The first was that there was no justification in any shape or form for continuing to impede the right of Belize to independence. That was and should be fundamental to our thinking. In that sense, I welcome the Bill, in that it takes the process a stage further forward. There should not be any veto on the development and the process of Belize to independence.
Secondly, I came to the conclusion that the best solution was not only independence for Belize but an agreed settlement with Guatemala. I say that, not because one wants to negotiate with an authoritarian regime or to deal with people who have no sense of democracy but because, given the geographical situation and the circumstances and the arrangements that prevailed at the time, it was desirable and essential for a successful, secure and developing Belize that the longstanding dispute should be resolved by negotiations.
It is in that spirit and by those criteria that I judge the Bill. Genuine questions need to be asked about the context in which the Bill has been brought to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) and I have always disagreed on emphasis. His comments implied that the Opposition at the last election were wholeheartedly behind the concept of independence. In fact, they fought the last election on a 10-year moratorium, which in my opinion was virtually the Guatemalan case. I do not support that line. I believe, too, that the Government of Belize and Premier Price gained support for the line he took that, despite all the difficulties, Belize should proceed to independence.
We must therefore ask the simple question whether this Government, with the Belize Government, in their negotiations with Guatemala, have achieved circumstances in which Belize can now proceed to secure independence. In this respect I strongly support the questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) about the position. Where do the negotiations stand? The attainment of a secure independence for Belize depends upon an agreement between the Belizean people, the Belizean Government and the Guatemalan Government.
There have always been two sets of negotiations. One set has covered the constitutional processes and has been between the Belizean and British Governments. The Minister has pointed out that that has proceeded in an orderly fashion. There is little to be argued about with the Belize constitution. The second set of negotiations has covered the settlement talks between Belize, Britain and Guatemala in which the hope has been to achieve a common agreement between all three parties on the way in which Belize should proceed to independence and on the way in which the longstanding dispute should be

resolved. Where does this tripartite negotiation stand? We read in today's press that talks are beginning in New York next week.
What is the role and function of the referendum in this process? The Belizean Government endorsed the heads of agreement earlier this year. If the three Governments reach agreement on a tripartite basis where will that agreement stand, since the whole issue will be subject to a referendum in Belize? How are all these various activities to be co-ordinated?

Dr. M. S. Miller: Since there is suspicion—and I am not judging whether the suspicion is justified—would it not be better for the referendum to be supervised by an organisation with no vested interest in the area?

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend uses the word "suspicion" in a variety of contexts and circumstances that I have heard many times and with which I disagree. The word is used frequently. There is suspicion about whether Premier Price is selling out the interests of the Belize people. The word is frequently used—I have often come across it in four and a half years—to undermine the authority of Belizean Government in their negotiations. I in no way share the sentiment represented by that word.
I have had dealings with the Opposition in Belize. I could in many respects as easily develop a series of suspicions about them, as I could about the Belize Government. I believe that the referendum in Belize, like the last elections there and like the whole democratic process in that country, will be conducted fairly. There is no need for the United Nations or any third party organisations to become involved. I believe in the Belize democratic processes. They have worked successfully and reasonably over the years.
In many ways one can foster a whole series of worries and suspicions within a small community about what is taking place and what is being negotiated. In a sense Premier Price cleared the decks by saying that there would be a referendum on the agreement between Britain, Guatemala and Belize. What happens—this has been the dilemma of the negotiations for many years—if we promote the independence of Belize—which the Bill does, and the Minister has indicated a time scale which he hopes to achieve—but the arrangements break down, either because the Belize people turn down the heads of agreement or because agreements are not reached in a bilateral context?
The Minister said that the arrangements made for the defence of Belize and the British contribution to that would be appropriate to the circumstances. We do not know what those circumstances will be. In a sense I agree with the points made by some of my hon. Friends, although I am not sure that they made them in the same context as I make them. I passionately believe that Belize should proceed to independence. I passionately believe that the understanding and agreements made in March between the Government, Belize and Guatemala should be followed through with every determination. It is no task of any hon. Member to try to cast deep suspicions on those agreements and understandings. We must uphold them, because they were supported by the three parties concerned.
We must ask ourselves what happens if, somewhere between now and the end of the year, a number of possibilities occur. The Belizeans may turn down the


arrangements, or, despite the heads of agreement, the negotiations may break down between the three parties. Will the Government proceed to give Belize independence by September, October or November? More important, will the Government commit themselves to further military support for an independent Belize if an absolute agreement is not achieved? I ask that question because of last week's discussion about defence. I know that the Belize guard ship is intrinsic to the operation. I assume that it will not be phased out under the arrangements made by the Secretary of State for Defence.
I am worried about the role and function of our defence arrangements which have served us well in the past, and not only in a military capacity. When Belize was bowled over by a terrible hurricane a decade ago the modest naval presence in that area helped to solve the problems. Where do Belize, the negotiations, the commitments and the guarantees that we need to give to the Belize people stand in the combination of all those factors?
We should give Belize independence. We should support Belize, which has asked for independence. That independence is passionately supported by the international community. There can be no Guatemalan veto on those proceedings. The successful negotiating position of the Minister has pushed forward the proceedings. I hope and wish that we shall achieve a successful settlement between the three parties. The Bill has been introduced, rightly and understandably, before the negotiations have been successfully concluded. That being so, we are entitled to ask what will happen if there are not merely hitches but fundamental breaches in the agreement during the coming months.

Mr. Christopher Price: I have never been to Belize and I am no relation of the Prime Minister of Belize. I give a warm welcome to the Bill. I believe in the decolonialisation of Central and Latin America generally. If Belize has problems with Guatemala, I think that Guatemala will emerge from its present position into that of Nicaragua and many other states in Central America and will tread the path of a genuine democracy.
It is wrong in principle to complete all the stages of a Bill in one night, and especially at this hour of the night, whatever the Bill. That must be so on purely constitutional grounds. I realise that the Minister has been furnished with dozens of precedents by Labour Governments. I agree that it has been the habit of the house to push through Bills of this sort in one night. However, it is wrong. Back Benchers who are not privy to the Front Bench mafia are right to say that now and again.
The principle of a decent gap between Second Reading and Report, during which the arguments advanced on Second Reading may be reflected upon and amendments tabled for Report, is a perfectly good one. That has nothing to do with parties or Governments. Whenever the present procedure is adopted, it is right that a Back Bencher like myself, someone who has never tasted the fruits of Government, whatever they may be—

Mr. Bob Dunn: And is never likely to.

Mr. Price: —should say that it is wrong, especially in the presence of such learned ex-clerks on the PPS Bench

as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who know so much more about these principles than I do. I should add that that is meant to be a compliment.
My second reservation is one that I make with even more fervour. When bringing independence Bills before the House, it is wrong to say that we should have independence first and negotiations later. I know that-the example of St. Vincent has been brought forward and I am sure that the Minister has been furnished with dozens of precedents.

Mr. Rowlands: Such as Zimbabwe.

Mr. Price: Indeed. I am sure that there are many others. The House has indulged in the procedure on many occasions. It has said "We hope so much that this country will go independent that we will give it its independence notwithstanding that everything depends on Government negotiations." In constitutional terms it is wrong. It is incumbent upon the Government first to negotiate independence and to come to the House secondly.
I am not against the decent collusion that takes place between the Front Benches. I know that a Government have to get their business through and that Whips and others have to collaborate to get the business through. Nevertheless, it is improper when dealing with independence Bills, which could have an important effect on the future of not only the individual country but the countries around it, to engage in negotiations and to come to the House thereafter.
It is all very well saying "We can put an order through in the hols", which is fundamentally what the Minister is saying—"Let's get it through and then, some time between the Labour Party and Conservative Party conferences, at the turn of September into October, the matter can all be settled by an order in council." That is not how it should be done.
The process of decolonialisation should be rather more orderly than the process of colonialisation. This is not an orderly process. It is subject to accident of a kind that we might be sorry about later. I very much hope that we shall not be, and that the whole matter will go smoothly. I have good hopes that it will, but there is a principle here that we should get right, and we have not got it right on this occasion.
My next point concerns the assurances that have been given. It is right that, in the act of decolonialising, Britain should give certain assurances about the immediate aftermath to the countries that are achieving their independence. One of the most recent independence measures to pass through the House was the New Hebrides Act 1980. It was necessary for this country to intervene militarily to achieve independence. It could not have been achieved had not the Royal Marines been sent in to what is now Vanuatu. It was logistically possible for that to be done because we had friendly relations with Australia and other countries round about.
I suspect that in the case of Belize, once it has independence, it may be slightly more difficult logistically if military intervention is necessary. I am deeply opposed to such action, but if one is to give assurances there must be some guarantee that one can deliver what one has promised. Therefore, the Minister has a duty to say a little more about what promises we have given to Belize and the degree to which we believe we can deliver.
I shall say a little more about my next point when I speak to my amendment. I am very grateful that it has been


selected, although it is starred. In my experience, the Home Office has had a slightly heavier hand than the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has had on all the independence Bills to come before the House in the past decade. The small print in this Bill, all about grandfathers and grandmothers, who is legitimate and who is illegitimate, and so on, is nothing to do with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I acquit the Minister of having any contact with those parts of the Bill, which are to do with those principles that the Home Office, no doubt unrepresented by the functionaries attending the debate, has insisted on going into the Bill because it is the first independence Bill to be introduced during the passage of the British Nationality Bill.
Throughout the Bill one sees the words "British Nationality Act 1981". It is worth reminding ourselves that there is no such thing yet, although the coincidence of the Royal Assents may be such that the Government get it right in the end.
There is a reference to the British Nationality Act 1981. I understand that there are plenty of precedents for that in parliamentary history and, therefore, one allows such things through. However, this is simply a reminder that it is all very well with this anticipatory legislation, hoping that the British Nationality Bill will go through, but there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. Sometimes those things do not happen. We may be put in the ludicrous situation of passing a Bill which refers to an Act which does not exist. We should proceed in an orderly rather than a disorderly manner in the passing of such Acts and make sure that we do not pass an Act of Parliament referring to one Act of Parliament until that Act of Parliament is on the statue book. I shall reserve the points which I want to make about the heavy-handed—

Mr. Rowlands: I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn the Minister's attention to the fact that this matter comes under the clause entitled "Operation of existing law".

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I have tabled a modest amendment to the Bill to put down a marker. One could have put down about 150,000 amendments to the Bill and kept the debate going a tiny bit longer. Because this is the first independence Bill to go through during the passage of the British Nationality Bill, and knowing that there will be future independence Bills, particularly the Hong Kong Bill to come one day, it is important to ensure that the Government are aware that nothing in the Bill will be taken by the Opposition. I hope, as a totally irrevocable precedent for what goes in future Bills. It needs a nationality Bill lawyer of the sort of which I am not, to go through the provisions of the Bill and check whether they are at one with the principles we want in a nationality Bill. I believe that we shall come to that point later during our modest Committee stage.
I give a warm welcome to the principle of independence but not nearly such a warm welcome to the method the Government have chosen. I would have been just as critical of my own Government as of this Government, as I have been in the past on independence Bills. The twin points of putting a Bill through all its stages in the same day and putting a paving Bill with an order to create independence are wrong in principle, because that could land the House in an extremely difficult, and possibly ludicrous situation later, if everything crumbles in Premier Price's hands, which I earnestly hope it will not.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the many points which have been raised in the debate.
I welcome what all hon. Members have said about their hopes for the future of Belize and their good wishes upon its impending progress towards independence. I am glad that not one hon. Member dissented from those sentiments. I am sure that the House will wish to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) that we must do all that we can to ensure the protection of this new democracy as it travels to independence in a turbulent and difficult region not known for its democratic tendencies.
I was asked many questions. I shall deal first with those not connected with the points raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) before turning to the substance of the main questions.
I do not believe that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) can make too much of the fact that all stages of the Bill are being taken tonight. The hon. Gentleman has had ample opportunity to table amendments and has done so. It is a common practice for Bills of this nature. There is no curtailment of debate or of democratic opportunities to amend. Had the Opposition found this procedure inconvenient, they could have discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. But it is not without advantage that we can debate these problems at our leisure without feeling that we are holding up discussion on any other measure on the Order Paper.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was wrong to grant independence by order. Had the Bill contained a date for independence, that presumably would have met his point. I should be happy to have the House recommend, perhaps in September, by which time I might be able to insert the date in the Bill. It is for hon. Gentlemens' convenience that we debate it now rather than during the recess.
There is no difference between the two procedures. We can debate it now and the date will be announced as soon as we can be sure of it, or we can debate it later with the date in the Bill. There is no basic difference in procedure or democracy in either of those two ways of proceeding. The principle of the Bill is to grant independence. The exact nature of the date is a matter of fine tuning.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) that in no sense did the United Nations compel us to give independence to Belize. A resolution was moved in the United Nations General Assembly that Belize should receive independence by the end of this year, and we thought it right that that should happen. We put our names to that resolution with the full intention of complying with it, and we still believe that we shall and can. However, it was not because of that pressure alone, but because we associated ourselves with that intention and we still do.

Dr. Glyn: I am sorry if I gave my hon. Friend the wrong impression, but I understood that we were morally bound to carry out what we had agreed to do.

Mr. Ridley: I never like the word "morally". We are perhaps bound in honour, and we are certainly bound to try hard, but I do not know how I would interpret "morally" in that context.
I come to the main questions touched on by hon. Members. I begin with the question about negotiations with Guatemala. I had hoped that we might have


concluded the treaty by this time. It is still my sincere hope and expectation that we can do so very soon, perhaps next week—who knows. We shall certainly enter those negotiations, as I believe will all parties, in the spirit that we must finish them quickly.
I must point out that we accepted the obligation to take Belize to independence under the United Nations resolution irrespective of whether there was an agreement or not. Therefore, if there is no agreement, it must be that in due course we take Belize to independence.
Hon. Members have asked about the referendum. The internal self-governing State of Belize is able to decide whether to have a referendum, what question to ask and how to organise it and we have no power at all to influence that decision. The decision to hold a referendum was therefore not one about which the British Government were consulted, nor do we have any say, either in law or in any other way, about whether it is held.
As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) rightly pointed out, it is a referendum on a treaty which is ostensibly between Britain and Guatemala, although the referendum is to be held in Belize. It is therefore an internal matter for them. If the Belizeans vote "Yes" in the referendum, the sooner that is done, the sooner we may proceed to independence without any trouble. As the whole House would agree, that would clearly be the ideal course.
If the Belizeans voted "No" in the referendum, that would be their affair. They decided to have a referendum and they will have made the decision that there should not be such an agreement. I cannot honestly be sure what the consequences of that would be. I think that it would be grievously difficult to predict how various countries around the world would react to that situation. Nevertheless, that is the business of Belize, because we have given an undertaking that we shall take Belize to independence by the end of the year, whatever happens. As it has asked for that independence, we shall pursue it in the way that I have stated.

Mr. Rowlands: I am trying to follow the Minister's presentation. If the Belizeans say "No" to an agreement struck between the British and Guatemalan Governments, will that agreement then be in force?

Mr. Ridley: It would be difficult to conceive of an agreement between Britain and Guatemala, if it were rejected by Belize, having any chance of being in force when Belize goes independent, because nearly all the provisions of the agreement relate to Belizean territory. I therefore cannot see how that could be. If the Belizeans prefer to go to independence without a treaty, that is their decision. I think that all hon. Members would agree that to do that would be to proceed upon a reckless and unnecessarily dangerous course.
That brings me to the question of security. I repeat what I said, as hon. Members were interested in my words. Her Majesty's Government intend to make arrangements for the future security of Belize which will be appropriate in the circumstances, whatever they may be.
There are three possible sets of circumstances. The first is that a treaty is approved by the referendum in Belize and also in Guatemala, as it must be, because the Guatemalans too, have to go thorough constitutional processes. Belize will then proceed to independence in an atmosphere of

mutual friendship, trust and peace. In that case, we shall take whatever precautions are necessary to secure the situation.
Others will be doing the same, of course. Belize will be a member of the United Nations and of the Organisation of American States. It will be guaranteed by the Rio treaty, which provides that if any one member of the Organisation of American States is threatened or attacked all the other members are bound to come to its assistance. That itself is a strong guarantee. As I have said, we shall add whatever we believe to be necessary to that.
If the negotiations break down, we have already said that we would see Belize right, and the formula that I have applied still stands, because that was the original undertaking that we gave to the Belizeans when we set out on the negotiation.
Of course, the third set of circumstances is that the treaty is agreed but not ratified by the referendum in Belize. In that case, I suggest, it would be an extremely perilous independence, because who can guarantee security in an area like South America, with a rejected Guatemala and all sorts of other people trying to get in on the Act? At a time like that, the danger would be great indeed, and I have told the Belizeans that the reaction of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government must not be taken for granted in those circumstances. I hope that that clears up the position.

Dr. M. S. Miller: It may clear up the position in the Government's mind, but it somewhat confuses the people of Belize. They are to be presented with a dangerous situation. They are to be made an offer that they cannot refuse, which is not the way to conduct democratic affairs.

Mr. Ridley: It is right to make offers of peace that people find difficult to refuse. A treaty of friendship with a powerful and hostile neighbour is not an offer that anybody should refuse or that people would forgive if it were easily refused. It is a matter of great importance. The idea that Belize could wantonly reject a treaty of friendship with its neighbour and expect there to be no consequence would strike anyone who knows Central America as unwise.
Finally, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street asked me about the state of the negotiations. We believe that about 80 per cent. of the ground has been covered and agreed. I admit that some difficult problems remain. I could go into them, but it would be better not to pre-empt the last bits of the negotiation. They relate to the sea—the treatment of certain areas of sea passages, the use of certain uninhabited keys off the coast of Belize and various other matters to do with that. However, important though they are, they are not life and death matters compared with the enormous importance of burying the claim and allowing Belize to proceed to independence which the whole House hopes will be happy, prosperous and peaceful, without its neighbour claiming it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[MR. ERNEST ARMSTRONG in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

OPERATION OF EXISTING LAW

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Christopher Price: I should like to raise the issue of clause 3(3). The Minister has a duty to answer my question. Subsection (3) states:
Subsection (1) above"—
that is a reference to the chunk above—
shall not apply in relation to the British Nationality Act 1981.
Hon. Members know that there is no such thing as the "British Nationality Act 1981". I know that the Minister has been furnished with a great chunk of precedents. However, it is still wrong to enact a Bill that mentions a non-existent Act. The British Nationality Bill is before the other place. Who knows what will happen to it? There could be a general election. All sorts of people could drop dead. The Social Democrats could take over the country. Many things could happen.
To enact a Bill that mentions an Act that does not exist is not wholly unconstitutional—I have studied the precedents, and would not deny them—but is extremely dangerous. Ultimately, the Bill may receive the Royal Assent despite the fact that it mentions an Act that does not exist. My hon. Friends are awaiting the next debate. I do not know what they will do about the clause stand part motions. It is possible to vote on them. I do not want to divide the House.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Would it not have been better to leave out any reference to the non-existent British Nationality Act 1981? Would it not have been better—and does it not justify my hon. Friend's claim that the Bill should not have been discussed in only one night—if two opportunities had been given for debate? We could leave out such matters today, and discuss the other points at a later stage, if the British Nationality Bill is enacted.

Mr. Price: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend that that would have been the proper procedure to adopt. However, as the Minister properly stated, these things are subject to the "usual channels". Far be it from me to say that the foreign affairs usual channels have other matters on their minds and are distracted. The usual channels appear to have agreed that this matter should go through. As is well known, we humble Back Benchers have little standing in the House.
It is right to raise this issue. The Minister should give a proper, considered reply. He can cite the precedents if he likes. What is the Government's intention, as regards the coincidence, or otherwise, of the Royal Assent being given to the two Acts. It would be unconstitutional and improper for the Royal Assent to be given to this Bill before it is given to the British Nationality Bill. I am sure that the Minister, who has satisfied me many times in my life, will be able to do so on this occasion. I look forward to his comments in reply to that point.

Mr. Ridley: I am always willing and eager to satisfy the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) if I can. On this occasion, I think that I can. I do not know how the usual channels come into this matter. It was not discussed through the usual channels. It is an issue of some complexity and perhaps a draftsman's paradise. It is our expectation that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent very many weeks before the British Nationality Bill. That is our intention.

Mr. Price: Before?

Mr. Ridley: Before. The nationality provisions in the later clauses of this Bill that the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend are based on the existing law. The British Nationality Bill does not apply to the nationality clauses because we anticipate that this Bill will become law certainly before the British Nationality Bill becomes law and even more certainly before the provisions of the British Nationality Act come into force, which will be later than its enactment.
It is a necessary device of the draftsmen. The use of the words "British Nationality Act" in clause 3 do not preempt the passage of the British Nationality Bill. They are there to guard against the possibility of the new nationality legislation coming into force before the Belize Bill. That is not our intention and it is very unlikely. However, if it were to happen it would be necessary, if clauses 4 and 5 are to operate as intended, for the consequences of the new nationality legislation to be disregarded in this context.
If, as is extremely improbable, the new nationality legislation were not to become operative ever, clause 3(3) would not have any effect and no harm would be done. I am therefore glad to have had the privilege of satisfying the hon. Gentleman once again.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF THE BRITISH Nationality Acts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Christopher Price: We are coming to the amendments that I have proposed to clause 5.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman moving the amendment?

Mr. Price: I am not moving the amendments, Mr. Armstrong. I am anticipating that when the Committee reaches clause 5 it might be the proper time to move the amendments. It is worth at this point alluding to the fact that clause 4 says who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. What it does not do is to say who is a citizen of Belize. Again I ask the Minister to afford the Committee an explanation of the clause. I understand that it is not on all fours with previous nationality Bills.
I recall previous Bills such as that relating to the Solomon Islands. I may be wrong, but I had understood that the purpose of an independence Bill was to say who is a citizen of a new country when it becomes independent. All this clause appears to do, as I read it, is to say who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. In asking for an explanation from the Minister, I am sorry for keeping hon. Members up, but I suspect that they will be kept up anyway. If the time is 12.20 am, 1.20 am or 2.20 am, what is the difference?
Is there any danger that the Government intend by this Bill to leave certain people in Belize with no nationality? That is the only issue that I wish to put to the Minister.

Mr. Ridley: I shall answer the last question first. I must give the hon. Gentleman a distinct and positive answer that there are no such provisions in the Bill which


leave anyone without citizenship. If he were to succeed in making the amendments that he has tabled to clause 5 he would achieve that object. He would deprive a large number of categories of people of citizenship of any sort. It is not the Government who are doing that but the hon. Gentleman. He cannot jib at the answer.
Clauses 4 and 5 deal with nationality matters. The purpose of the provision follows that in all previous independence Bills and is identical to many other Bills with one small exception to clause 5 to which we shall come. They define those people connected with Belize who will cease to be United Kingdom citizens when Belize becomes independent—that is in clause 4—with the normal proviso that those with close connections with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency will not cease to be United Kingdom citizens. That is the purpose of clause 5.
Those clauses must necessarily operate against the background of the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965 because the new Bill will not be in force at the time this Bill comes into force.

Mr. Price: Can the Minister give us a guarantee about clause 4? Those who cease to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies will definitely, on independence, become citizens of Belize. Is that so?

Mr. Ridley: Yes.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Taking clause 4 in conjuction with the previous clause and clause 5, it is my contention that the Bill should not have gone through in this form. In it we deal with two related but different subjects. One is the granting of independence and the other is the vast subject of British nationality and who will be what nationality, with all kinds of difficulties which would require a Home Office spokesman of legal stature to explain to us.
If the Bill had been introduced and proceeded with in the way it should have been treated, many amendments would have been tabled to clauses 3, 4 and 5, totally divorced from the principle of the granting of independence. Does not the Minister realise that to put highly contentious matters into a Bill associated with an Act which is not yet an Act is not the way that the business of the House should be conducted?

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman has any difficulty in understanding any of these clauses he has only to ask me about anything and I shall be only to happy to tell him. The fact that he does not understand it is no reason why the Bill should not proceed. I assure him that the clauses are standard for all previous independence Bills. They are not affected by the British Nationality Bill now before the House except in the way that I have outlined. There is an absolute necessity to legislate for citizenship at a time that an independence Bill is granted. One would not separate the two questions of independence and citizenship, because they are at the heart of the relationship between them at the time a country comes to independence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

RETENTION OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES IN CERTAIN CASES

Mr. Christopher Price: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 30, leave out subsections (1) to (3).

The Second Deputy Chairman: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 23, leave out subsections (5) to (7).

Mr. Price: I am sure that the Minister will tell me that my amendments are defective. It is possible that the amendments do not achieve the purpose that I want to achieve. Notwithstanding the procedures of the House in passing a Bill through in one day, there is always another place. I am sure that the Minister will accept that I want to put a principle and ask a number of questions. The Minister says that the provisions are standard with certain exceptions. Will he explain the elements which are not standard? I have had some experience of independence Bills and I find it difficult to understand what he means by "standard". Almost all previous independence Bills have made provisions which are peculiar to the particular ex-colony. The idea that there is a Home Office standard set of procedures is slightly suspect. We should scrutinise that possibility more closely.
The purpose of the amendments is to leave in the provisions relating to the right of abode. I am sure that it is not the intention to take away the right of abode from anyone who has established the right of abode here. However, clause 5 gives to many people who are living in Belize the right to retain their United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship while taking away the right from another section of the population.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that the majority of people who have achieved the right to retain their United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship are white and that the majority of people who have lost their citizenship are not white. I do not use the words "racist" or "racialist", as some of my colleagues have during proceedings on the British Nationality Bill. However, if there is such a general effect in clauses 4 and 5, the Minister should explain why the clauses are set out in such a way as to deprive certain United Kingdom citizens of their rights and to restore rights to other United Kingdom citizens.
I do not deny that the provisions in clauses 4 and 5, with the exceptions which the Minister will explain, have been enacted in independence Bills throughout the past decade from time to time. I tabled the amendments as markers rather than expecting the House to approve them—although it is up to my right hon. and hon. Friends to decide whether they divide the House.
Now that the British Nationality Bill is going through Parliament and since other territories, Hong Kong in particular, might be involved, if this is to be the pattern of independence Bills the House should discuss the principles in much greater detail in future. If I am right that clauses 4 and 5, with their convoluted terms about legitimacy, illegitimacy, fathers, fathers' fathers and where people were born are really about whether people are white or not white, it is proper that the House should discuss them. Although I am a suspicious person, I have always trusted the Minister to be fair with the House. It is proper at this point for me to listen to such words of wisdom as he may have on the matter.

Mr. Ridley: I am happy to respond to the request of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to explain the clause and comment on his amendments. I said that there had been a departure from standard practice. That is dealt with in clause 5(4), which is the only subsection that the hon. Gentleman does not seek to leave out. I shall explain that matter first.
In all previous independence Acts, if a citizen of the country being made independent had been resident in the United Kingdom for five years or more, upon his country of origin going independent he lost his citizenship of the United Kingdom because of the independence of the country of his origin. He then had to apply to have it restored and, I believe, to pay a considerable sum of money to reacquire citizenship.
That has been accepted by the Government, during the proceedings of another Bill, to be a matter which should not be necessary. It has been put right in the British Nationality Bill. However, in order that no one in Belize should be inconvenienced, the same provision has been written into this Bill in clause 5(4). That is an advantage to those who might otherwise have been disadvantaged. That is the only difference between previous enactments and this.
When the hon. Gentleman came to the rest of the subsections of clause 5 he was not clear about their purpose. With breathtaking effrontery he said that since he did not understand them they must be racialist. What a way to go about his business. What a disgraceful charge to make. I shall explain to him what they mean, because clearly he does not know.
These subsections deal with the whole variety of people who might he born of Belizean parents or have connections of any sort with Belize but who are no longer resident in Belize. Thus, on the passage of the Bill they would lose their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and become, in some cases, citizens of Belize, which is all right. However, in the cases where they would have no citizenship, we have to grant them United Kingdom citizenship. If they were living in a third country—neither Belize nor Great Britain—and if on the passage of the Bill they lost their United Kingdom citizenship and could not claim Belizean citizenship because they were not living there, they would be without citizenship. These subsections specifically grant United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship to all those people of the various categories—if the hon. Gentleman reads the subsections he will see what the categories are—who otherwise would lose their citizenship on the passage of the Bill.
That is far from being something that is better for whites than blacks, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest. It is a procedure to make sure that no one is disadvantaged or left without citizenship as a result of this Bill. The House should take note that, without understanding one word of the clause, the hon. Gentleman saw fit to assume that it must be directed against people of black origin. I think that he should apologise for using this very good Bill to give a country its independence as a vehicle for trying to peddle racial prejudice based on his own ignorance.

Mr. Christopher Price: I can only attribute the Minister's intensity to the time of night. Why was not the Bill cast in a form that made clear to whom the new

Government of Belize would grant citizenship? Why is there nothing positive in the Bill about who will gain citizenship?

Mr. Ridley: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report of the Belize constitutional conference, Cmnd. 8245. It is couched in simpler language than the Bill. It lists, in para. 18, all those who will achieve Belizean citizenship on the day of independence. It is in the Bill, but the legal language is often not so simple to understand as is the straightforward report of the conference. All of these provisions are properly contained in the Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to seek them in plainer English I recommend that he reads the report.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 58.

Division No. 239]
[12.36 am


AYES


Campbell-Savours, Dale



Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Race, Reg
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Major, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Marlow, Tony


Blackburn, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Brinton, Tim
Murphy, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Neale, Gerrard


Buck, Antony
Newton, Tony


Bulmer, Esmond
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Butcher, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Patten, John (Oxford)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Rhodes James, Robert


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cope, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Dorrell, Stephen
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Speller, Tony


Dover, Denshore
Squire, Robin


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Stanley, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Steen, Anthony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Stevens, Martin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stradling Thomas, J.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Goodlad, Alastair
Thompson, Donald


Gow, Ian
Waddington, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Watson, John


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Wells, Bowen


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wickenden, Keith


Lang, Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel



Le Marchant, Spencer
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Lyell, Nicholas
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Question accordingly negatived

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF BELIZE

Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

Dr. Glyn: Am I right in understanding that the alterations allow the Government to continue to send British forces to Belize subject to the consent of the Belizean Government?

Mr. Ridley: I think that that is broadly right, yes.

Mr. Christopher Price: It was not my intention to speak on the schedule. I should not do so save for the most enigmatic ministerial response that I have ever heard. It is all very well for the Minister to say at 12.48 am "I think that that is broadly right, yes" in response to a genuine question from his hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), who asked, in effect, "If the Belize Government, after independence has been granted, were to request the intervention of British forces, would that intervention be accepted?" The Minister used the word "broadly", which no doubt he hopes means that he can get out of any intention to send troops or any refusal to send troops. I assume that he hopes that "broadly" covers both eventualities.
Even if we do not get another intervention from the Minister, who looks well locked down to his Bench, a protest should be entered. The Bill is making a new State in Latin America independent. The intervention of British troops will be essential in its first few years of operation. All that the Minister can say is "I think that that is broadly right." It is an abuse of the procedures of the House. We should be given a definitive statement.

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to spell out the position at greater length, I shall do so.
The power to accept or not to accept British troops in an independent Belize lies with the Belize Government under schedule 1, which deals with their power to make laws and to exercise their sovereignty. If British troops are invited to remain in or to visit an independent Belize at a later stage, many enactments in our law require to be changed for us legally to allow them to go. Schedule 2 deals with that, so what my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) said was broadly right.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources)

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1981, which were laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
As hon. Members will have observed, these regulations are rather complex and technical, and it may be for the convenience of the House if I first explain briefly why the amending regulations are necessary and then give some indication of the main matters of substance which they cover.
As the House will recall, last year 13 sets of regulations were made to give effect to the new supplementary benefit scheme, which was designed to ensure that so far as possible entitlements of claimants are prescribed by law, and to reduce the amount of discretion required to administer it. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House saw that reform as a major advance on the largely discretionary scheme which it replaced, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that the indications are that the new scheme, which has now been in operation for seven months, is settling down satisfactorily, and working well on the whole.
I said last year that I did not regard the enactment of those regulations as the end of the job. Unavoidably, with a change of such size and complexity, some details of the legislative arrangements were not as tightly drafted as would be desirable; and some problems have become apparent in the course of operating the new scheme. In order to clarify and resolve the outstanding issues, we have therefore decided to lay before Parliament two sets of amending regulations—the set which we are debating tonight, which is subject to affirmative resolution, and another set of miscellaneous amendment regulations, which are subject to negative resolution.
The general thrust of both sets of regulations is to give effect to provisions confirming the policy of the former Supplementary Benefits Commission or the established policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, as appropriate. Some provisions clarify the law where doubt has arisen about whether it provides cover for accepted policy. In general, the object of the amendments is to put the regulations into the state in which they should have been if it had been possible to secure everything properly last year. They do not, except in a few instances, make substantive changes in the rules then intended.
It will be apparent to the House that the amendments in the present set of regulations are substantial in number, and that is even more true in the case of the miscellaneous amendment regulations. The job of translating the supplementary benefit scheme into regulations was, however, an enormous task and, if I may say so, a substantial technical and legislative achievement. The scheme itself is complex, despite a measure of simplification and clarification which we introduced last year. It is therefore unsurprising that the settling down of the new machinery has revealed a need for some mechanical adjustment and refinement.
Before I go on to speak about the changes we are making, I should like to make the point that it is in the


nature of the scheme that we cannot, and indeed ought not to expect to, take the process of simplification too far. Much of its complexity is due precisely to the fact that it defines peoples' rights and entitlements. It would be possible to devise a much simpler scheme—but, as a result, many would be likely to lose because such a scheme would inevitably be less sensitive to individual need. However, there are other features of the new scheme which, from the point of view of the claimant, work in the direction of clarity.
As the House knows, the object of a scheme in which entitlements are so far as possible prescribed by law, is to enable the claimant, and those who advise him, to know with greater certainty what his entitlements are, and to remove what many regarded as an unacceptable degree of arbitrariness in their administration. Further, the publication of the S manual next winter, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in the debate on 3 February, will provide claimants with yet more guidance as to their entitlements and the way in which those are calculated.
The amendments which we are proposing have resulted from our own experience of the working of the new scheme and from a careful review of the detailed effect of last year's legislation. It would, however, be right at this point also to pay a tribute to the contribution which has been made by others to our understanding of how the scheme operates, including comments from hon. Members, from members of appeal tribunals and from outside commentators.
I wish to pay a tribute to the work of such bodies as the Child Poverty Action Group, whose report was published last week. The CPAG is just one of the outside groups from whom we have commissioned research to advise us on how the new scheme is working. That research complements our departmental studies, statistical evaluation and normal management information. While in some of their comments they are undoubtedly candid friends, I wish to take this opportunity of thanking them for their work and to assure the House that we are indeed studying it carefully. My officials will shortly be meeting them to discuss the work they have done to date.
I turn now to some of the more important features of the amendments to the requirements and resources regulations. I will take the requirements regulations first. Regulation (2) clarifies the definition of a "prisoner", in particular to confirm that people committed for hospital treatment following proceedings are treated as patients—and, therefore, are eligible for benefit—and not as prisoners, who are excluded from benefit.
There are a number of provisions relating to housing requirements. In particular, we have made provision for a boarder's charge to be paid for a full week. We have also increased the maximum amount payable for board and lodging to people suffering from a mental disorder who are living in certain types of accommodation, and to people living in accommodation used for the rehabilitation of alcoholics or drug addicts. We recognise that those people have special needs which may increase the cost of their accommodation. The regulations now cover the retaining fee of boarders who are temporarily in residential accommodation as well as those in hospital.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mrs Chalker: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to conclude my remarks,

because I wish to say something more about housing. If he wants to intervene later I am sure that he will make his own contribution.
Still on housing, we have also made provision for members of the same household to be allowed their appropriate share of housing costs if, in practice, they are sharing these expenses. It was our intention that people remanded in custody—for example, to await trial—should not be at risk of losing their accommodation. The regulations were, however, defective, and we have amended them to allow weekly housing costs to be paid to people in this situation.
We have also amended the regulations to allow a week's rent to be paid in advance to a local authority. The regulations now provide that a person's benefit should not be reduced if a non-dependant is providing residential assistance, even though an additional requirement for the assistance is not payable because of a trade dispute or because it is being provided by a local authority. We have also made similar provision to ensure that in the majority of cases there is no reduction in housing requirements if a claimant has someone living with him whose usual home is elsewhere.
The special provisions for determining the housing requirements of residents in Abbeyfield Society Homes are no longer necessary and are therefore abolished in these regulations. I should, however, inform the House that this simplification has the full approval of the Abbeyfield Society.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if it is on the subject of housing.

Mr. Bennett: My intervention relates to the points that have been made so far. The hon. Lady listed a whole series of people who were unable to get benefits because the original regulations were defective. How many did not receive benefits, and were any provisions made to overcome administratively the problems arising from the first set of regulations?

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot speak globally for all the different items that I have mentioned, but I think I am right in saying that, wherever possible, if there has been a sensible reason, and if someone should have been paid the money and something was in error, it has been looked at sympathetically.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that it has been paid in every case. However, every time something of this nature has been defective, it has been taken to the office of the chief supplementary benefit officer and everything has been recorded most meticulously to make sure that at the earliest opportunity we could start to put right those things that inadvertantly were found to be defective. Where the intention was clear but where the wording was perhaps in doubt, I am sure that in those cases people have received the help that they needed.
We have also made amendments which clarify the interaction between different conditions of entitlement to to heating additions so as to restore the policy of the former Supplementary Benefits Commission, and to treat on the same basis as others with central heating those people paying fixed charges for heating which are based on consumption within their control. Other amendments


simplify the legal basis of the calculation—for instance, of the provision for fares to visit people in hospital and to allow public transport costs where a taxi is used for necessary travel.
At present, the provision governing the award for fares to visit people in hospital is complex and in error. In the original regulations it seeks to calculate how much is available from a claimant's scale rates towards the fares, taking into account the reduced cost of maintenance of the patient in hospital. This is presently done by reference to the scale rates applicable at the time, which vary according to the relationship of the patient with the claimant and the length of stay in hospital. The legal expression of these references has been criticised as being too complicated and, therefore, confusing. It is also wrong as it stands.
The proposal in these regulations seeks to short-cut the complex references by specifying the sums which are reached after the calculation mentioned above has been done. The amounts have been rounded to the nearest 25 pence. Although the list of different amounts looks involved, in fact, it makes the calculation of the additional requirement much simpler. The only departure from current practice is the use of rounded as opposed to exact figures.
In the amendments to the resources regulations we have clarified the interpretative provisions relating to students and fostering of children. We have amended the provisions relating to income tax refunds received by people whose employment is temporarily interrupted, whether because of a trade dispute or for some other reason. Such payments are treated as income and hitherto have had to be spread over a forward period equal to the period for which they are payable and could have affected entitlement for several weeks. Under the amendment, any income tax refund, whether it is a regular one or a lump sum for arrears, will be offset against benefit only in the week of receipt.
We have also clarified the circumstances in which payments in consequence of a personal or criminal injury which are held on trust may be temporarily disregarded for the purposes of the supplementary benefits capital rule.
We are also amending the regulation which provides for the treatment of past earnings received from employment at the start of a trade dispute. As the House knows, people who finish work in normal circumstances are expected to manage on their final earnings from the previous employment for a forward period equal to the period for which those earnings are paid, and are disqualified from benefit for this period. Where trade disputes are concerned, however, because these are usually short-lived there has for many years now, under previous Administrations as well as this one, been a slightly tougher rule for strikers. If a striker's final earnings exceed twice the whole family's normal requirements, the excess is regarded as available for living expenses in the first benefit week in which entitlement arises. The present provision, however, does not achieve the desired effect in two ways. First, it relates only to the weekly paid and does not effect those who are paid at more infrequent intervals. Secondly, it enables the rule to be used where the first benefit week in which entitlement arises coincides with the return to work at the end of the dispute. The amendment substitutes a new formula to end confinement of the present provision to the weekly paid, and also limits its application to entitlement which arises during the strike, and not when

the striker has returned to work. This provision restores the practice of the former Supplementary Benefits Commission before last November.
In conclusion, I repeat that we are aware that much of the content of these regulations, as of the regulations which they seek to amend, is very detailed and complicated. In introducing the regulations before the House this evening, I have endeavoured to explain the need for them in general terms, and I have drawn attention to those amendments which are among the more significant. While I have sought to reassure the House that the regulations are uncontentious, I shall do my best to assist hon. Members this evening or later if they wish to raise questions on the content of the regulations.
Perhaps I may add that the passage of these regulations by the House, if it accepts them, does not mean that we have reached the end of reviewing progress with the new scheme. The regulations in no way pre-empt the monitoring exercise on which the Social Security Advisory Committee and my Department have now embarked, to which the research I referred to earlier will make an important contribution. We shall, of course, continue also to watch the scheme in operation with great care and we shall be prepared to consider any changes or developments which experience may show to be desirable, although I should make the point that any changes carrying a net benefit or staff cost will have to take their place in the stiff competition for any additional public resources along with all the other deserving objects of Government expenditure.
The regulations are detailed and complex. I hope that I have answered many of the questions that may have been in hon. Members' minds. I shall try to answer any others that may arise.
I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The Under-Secretary of State was correct to say that the regulations are complex. She said that there were 13 sets of basic regulations for the new supplementary benefit system. There have been three previous sets of amending regulations, two of which were laid before the House before the 13 came into force. We now have this set of amending regulations, plus the miscellaneous amendment regulations. The grand total is 18 sets of regulations, some of which amend previous regulations and some of which amend amendments to previous regulations. Therefore, above all there is a crying need for consolidation.
I hope that we shall not have to wait until the Minister's forecast date of the S manual publication next winter. I should like a commitment from the Government now about consolidating the regulations. We are in a new ball game running the system via regulations. If the Taxes Act can be consolidated each year for the benefit of those people and their lawyers who wish to rip off the tax system, surely the Government can consolidate these regulations so that welfare rights bodies can professionally advise people on their rights, which they cannot do if we keep amending amending regulations.
How many will lose and how many will gain from the regulations? They are based on the working of the scheme so far, so there should be figures available, and the information would be useful.
The regulations are complex, and it would make a charade of our procedures if I were to attempt to go into the mass of detail. Regulation 3(6)(a)(i) relates to the


Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975. The explanatory memorandum that the Government provided to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments states:
Paragraph (6) amends those provisions of regulation 11 which relate to the calculation of income other than earnings and payments made by liable relatives. The effect of the amendment in sub-paragraph (a)(i) is that any payment made by virtue of any scheme made under the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975…will be subject to the £4 disregard".
It therefore appears that the Government are amending regulation 11 of the original regulations because they did not intend those persons who obtained benefit under that Act not to have the £4 disregard.
However, regulation 11 of the original regulations that the House passed last year—the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Regulations—made no reference to the 1975 Act. Reference to the Act was in the Supplementary Benefit (Aggregation Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1980. In fact, the original regulations allowed the £4 disregard for beneficiaries under the 1975 Act, but before they came into force on 24 November, further amendment regulations were made which caught those subject to the benefit and took away the £4 disregard.
It is an error of drafting to mislead the Select Committee about the effect of the amendment. The Government did not come clean and say that the provision was not there to start with, and that they amended the original regulations and are now trying to put right what was a mistake. The Government owe the House an explanation of why they included the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act in the amendment regulations.
I turn to regulation 3(4)(a), which seeks to change a definition. It amends the resource regulations—we are dealing with resource and requirement regulations—so that certain benefits that the claimant has not received can be taken into account as part of the claimant's resources. Those benefits are supplementary benefits of one type or another. An explanation is called for. What is the difference between a benefit that is due but has not been paid and a benefit that will become available on application? Why is the rule about a benefit that is due but that has not been paid to continue while the regulation on the rule that covers benefits "that would become available on application" will not continue? What is the purpose of the amendment? Does it simply seek to correct a mistake in the 1980 regulations or does it represent a policy change? That is the crux of the matter. If the Minister says that an error is being corrected, we shall understand that. If there is a policy change, the House should be told of it.
Dependants of claimants could find themselves in the ludicrous position of not being eligible to receive benefits but of being forced to make a claim to satisfy the claim made by the person on whom they are dependent. I may have gone about things in a roundabout way. However, I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the provision seeks to correct a mistake or represents a policy change.
I had intended to raise in detail references to regulation 3(5)(b). The provision is not clear and I am satisfied. It relates to those who lose income because of an industrial dispute. However, I shall leave that matter as I understand that one of my hon. Friends hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will help us with one other point of definition. I refer to

regulation 3(6)(b)(v) on page 8, which states that the words "a television licence" are to be removed and substituted by the following words:
'the provision of either a leisure or amenity item or an item for which provision is not made'".
What is meant by "amenity item"? I hope that the Minister will explain. As I have said, the position is complicated, because we are amending amending regulations. Therefore, we need guidance as to what the Government mean by that change in definition.
I turn to the subject of access to the regulations. I have not totted up their cost. I have a bundle of the original regulations. They are not cheap and cost between £1.40 and £2.70. The regulations that we are amending cost £1.70. Put together, the regulations must cost several pounds.

Mr. Reg Race: I understand that the cost of the regulations and the yellow book total £26.50. After the amendment regulations have been accepted, the cost will be about £30.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is correct. It costs several pounds to buy the regulations, which do not inform the claimant of his rights. I am not suggesting, nor. I think, is my hon. Friend, that claimants should study the yellow book, "The Law relating to Supplementary Benefits and Family Income Supplements." If, however, that publication is purchased, together with the regulations and the amendment regulations, the figure given by my hon. Friend is correct. People would have to fork out £30 or more.
Some of the problems would not arise if the Government were to ensure that the supplementary benefits handbook was re-published. The latest handbook was published last November. It does not contain material relating to the regulations that the House passed last year. The handbook was out of date before it was published. I should have thought that it was reasonable to expect a new publication to be available this November at modest cost. I understand that this will not be the case. The Minister looks surprised. I understand from inquiries made by those who assist the Opposition that it is not proposed that there will be an updated version of the supplementary benefits handbook for this year.
The TUC has recently published a guide to the supplementary benefits system. It is extremely useful and costs a moderate 75p. I ask the Minister and those who control HMSO to bear in mind that the TUC can produce the guide at this price and present it in a manner that is extremely useful to those who advise claimants. I hope therefore that the Government will come forward with an updated version of their handbook.
The Child Poverty Action Group has published material on the disability allowance and also a useful guide that is as up to date as it is possible to achieve, I understand that a new edition of the Penguin guide to supplementary benefits will be published next month. I am told—this is a bit of a plug—that Lord Scarman has described it in a foreword as a modern classic. It is sorely needed by those, including hon. Members, who try to ensure that constituents receive the benefits to which the House has decided they should be entitled.
Why have not the Government taken the opportunity in the amendment regulations to start to deal with the problems that have arisen over regulations 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the resources regulations? I refer to capital


resources—basically, the limit of £2,000 for a husband and wife which prevents them from obtaining supplementary benefit. There has been considerable disquiet about the definition of resources, about the sum of money involved and about the fact that it appears that the sum will not be uprated this year. Hon. Members have not yet seen the uprating orders. At the minimum, £2,000 next November will be worth only about £1,800 at last year's prices, even if the Government's forecast of 10 per cent. inflation is met.
The question also arises of the inclusion of the surrender value of life policies about which the Minister has been questioned several times, and the inclusion of all capital, including redundancy payments and ex gratia payments. I should have thought that the Government, in bringing forward these amendment regulations, could have included the results of their initial inquiries.
There is a good deal of confusion. People are sometimes being forced to use up nest-eggs or savings. They can reduce their capital to below £2,000 and can be caught if they are not careful about how they spend the money. By the time that some of those people retire, if they are in later years or have taken an early retirement, instead of being able to retire and manage on State retirement pension alone they will be forced into supplementary pension. Thus, we shall not solve a problem for some people on supplementary pension and supplementary benefit.
I have good evidence about the confusion in the country and in the House about the capital ceiling. The example is in a letter from the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) to one of his constituents. The hon. Member is here because I gave him notice that I would probably refer to him. The constituent to whom the hon. Member wrote was a former Tory supporter and said that he was now ashamed of being a Conservative. I am not surprised about that.

Mr. John Blackburn: Has the hon. Gentleman met my constituent?

Mr. Rooker: I met the hon. Gentleman's constituent as an unemployed person at a right-to-work conference recently. The man has real difficulties under the Government, like 2·8 million other people. The hon. Member for Dudley, West wrote to his constituent who had complained about that ceiling, saying:
You will note that the position regarding savings has not changed and the original proposals of £2,000 were introduced by the previous Labour Government.
That is a distortion of reality. I am not blaming the hon. Member for Dudley, West as he was not a member of the last Parliament. The social security review called "Social Assistance" was published together with all the options—one of which was to have a capital cut-off instead of a sliding scale. The Labour Government did not make any pronouncement on the results of "Social Assistance". It was left to this Government simply because of the general election and the intervening change.
Under the old rules £2,000 would probably have affected a supplementary benefit requirement by about £8 a week. This was not a proposal of the Labour Government and it is not true to say that the position has not changed. The position has changed, because the Government chose an option that was put up for them by a working group of

officials within the Department. They took the decision. It was a decision that the Opposition opposed and we would not have chosen that option had we been in Government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made abundantly clear during the passage of the first Social Security Bill.
The confusion is evident in the country and it is shared on the Tory Benches. I was pleased to see that the hon. Member for Dudley, West wrote to his constituent to say that he agreed that the figure was low. He said:
I agree that it does place a restriction on those people who not only work hard but equally save well. Naturally, I will be making representations on the broad issue of policy which has been revealed.
I await with interest the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate.
My last point is brief. I have given the Minister notice of the question because it relates to the other set of amendment regulations which are not available to us at present but they are before the House. I refer to the Supplementary Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations, SI 815. It appears from those regulations that the Government are taking power over the issue of single payments for items of clothing, bedding, and so on, which are laid down in the single payments regulations. The items are set out with a sum of money alongside. It appears that the Government have taken power to enable the officers in the local offices to pay a sum of money if a claim is valid and is less than that laid down in the regulations. The Minister shakes her head. She can say that that is untrue, but it has been worth raising it since it causes concern to those who have read the regulations because of the way they are drafted by the substitution of the word "and" in the old regulations for the word "or" in these regulations. That has caused concern about what the Government might be up to. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain that matter because then the Opposition would perhaps not have to table a prayer and debate the matter again. The main problem could be solved tonight.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The regulations are difficult to understand. It is ironic that one of the main reasons for reforming the system was the desire to make them clearer so that claimants would have more benefits as of right instead of discretion being used. If people are to receive benefits as of right it is essential that they and the officials understand the regulations. It is almost impossible to understand the regulations. The regulations amend regulations which amend regulations. That creates chaos.
I hope that the Minister will say how soon we expect a reprint of the regulations so that we do not have to transfer our thoughts from one set to another. I hope that they will be available at a reasonable cost. I hope that the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will be allayed. It is important that the handbook should be brought up to date.
I intervened earlier because the Minister listed a series of anomalies. The officials decided that they had no power to pay certain benefits. How much discretion has been exercised to ensure that people did not lose benefit, or have people had to wait for these regulations? Will some people receive retrospective payments and some lose payments?
Is the discretion there only because of the transitional regulations, most of which have finished, or will there still be some discretion? It has been said that far less discretion will be possible.
Is the discretion to be exercised in areas where there are still anomalies? The Child Poverty Action Group says that the regulations do not cover all the anomalies. If payments are being denied because of flaws in the regulations, it is time that such payments were made.
The regulations change the rules relating to supplementary benefit for school leavers. Regulation 3(2)(a), on page 6, deals with the definition of a student. A disturbing case was brought to my attention at my advice bureau on Saturday. It involved a constituent who believes that as a result of the change she is £17 a week worse off. Because she lost her entitlement to FIS her son is not entitled to supplementary benefit.
The figures emphasise the problem. The woman has two jobs at the same firm. She works for 25 hours a week in the office for £32. She works a further 6 hours as a cleaner for £7·50. Her total earnings are, therefore, £39·50. It is a sad reflection on the the system that out of that, £6·98 is taken in tax and insurance. She is left with a take-home pay of £32·52. She receives child benefit and with the single parent allowance she receives £7·75. Her total income is £40·27. Until 16 June she was receiving £17 in FIS.
Then this lady applied for a renewal of her family income supplement, which had run out. She was told that she was not eligible for it because her son had left school. Her son had left school, but under the new regulations he cannot draw supplementary benefit, he is unable to get a job and he will not be eligible for supplementary benefit until September. So my constituent still has to keep her son with no income except the family allowance. She feels—and I agree—that she should be eligible to claim family income supplement. If ever there were a case for assistance, that is one.
If the woman's claim for family income supplement had come up for renewal in May, not only would she have received it up to September but she would have received it for the next 12 months. That is a major anomaly, and it is a major loss of income for one of my constituents who clearly has been struggling to work.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the case is that when this lady drew the matter to the attention of the people in the supplementary benefit office in Stockport, first she got a lot of sympathy, but the final comment was "The only thing you can do is to give up your job, draw supplementary benefit in your own right, and you will be better off". Clearly, that is right. However, she wants to maintain herself rather than having to rely totally on the State. Moreover, if she gave up her job between now and September she would probably find it impossible to get her job back.
I hope that the Minister will look into this case. It appears to be a major anomaly. It is possible that my constituent and I have misread the regulations, and that there is some way in which she can continue to claim family income supplement. If there is no way in which she can do that, I hope that the Minister will bring forward amending regulations quickly to solve the problem and will use some of the discretion to which she referred earlier to try to get round the problem.
I come to the £2,000 capital. Again, I have a constituent who is extremely bitter about the matter. He explained that

he felt that he was being discriminated against, and he compared his position with that of his brother. His brother had been made redundant, had exhausted his unemployment benefit, and was getting supplementary benefit. His brother had virtually no savings, but when he reached 65, in addition to the State pension he would get a quite generous pension from the company for which he had worked. My constituent, on the other hand, had no pension provision. Because his employer had no pension scheme, he had saved about £3,000. That was his way of making the same provision as his brother had made by way of the company pension scheme. He was told that he was not eligible for supplementary benefit because his money was in the bank and he would have to spend over £2,000 before he was eligible. He felt that that was grossly unfair Many of my hon. Friends will know of other instances in which the £2,000 seems particularly harsh on the individual.
In my constituency—and, I am sure, in many others—there is the problem of the long-term unemployed. The fact that they cannot get on to the long-term supplementary benefit rates is becoming an increasingly difficult problem. Under the old regulations, which applied before the changes last autumn, I believe that there were more areas of discretion where individual benefit officers could make available lump sums to tide over people who were suffering from long periods of low income. Under the new regulations there are far fewer areas of discretion.
I strongly urge the Government, because of the numbers that are involved and the length of time that is involved, to tackle the problem of letting the long-term unemployed get from the short-term supplementary benefit rates to the long-term rates, if they want to alleviate the increasing poverty in this country.

Mr. Reg Race: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the complexity of the regulations. We are now discussing, in some parts, amendments to amendments to the original regulations. It is clear that even Members of Parliament find it difficult to understand how the regulations affect individual constituency cases. If it is difficult for us, it must be even more difficult for those outside who do not have the benefit of ministerial explanations to understand the regulations.
Therefore, we need a consolidation measure, a statutory instrument that sets out the position clearly for the benefit of the agencies concerned and of the civil servants in the DHSS local offices, who do such an excellent job. It is important for them to get that measure quickly. It is important also because the supplementary benefits handbook, the single most authoritative source of information on the eligibility of claimants to benefit, is, because of the amendments we are discussing this evening, in many respects woefully out of date. Any hon. Member who relies on it may give his or her constituents incorrect advice about their eligibility for benefit.
I was disturbed to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr about the possibility of the Department not issuing a further edition of the handbook this year. I hope that the Minister will firmly discount that and confirm that that is not a part of the Department's economies.
Among a number of other major matters to which I shall refer is the citing of regulations by benefits officers when


they explain to claimants why they have been given or refused a benefit. The House will be familiar with the way in which national insurance officers quote the national insurance regulations when they assess and disallow claims. Claimants are told the position by reference to a specified regulation. That is not done on the supplementary benefits side of the DHSS. I had hoped that the regulations would embody a move by the Government to ensure that when a benefits officer disallowed a claim the explanation for the disallowance would be set out clearly so that the claimant or his or her adviser could study the regulations to see precisely what the benefit officer meant.
I turn next to the issues not covered by the regulations. It is appalling that the Government have not used this major opportunity to change the rule on capital allowances for the purposes of claiming supplementary benefit. The £2,000 limit is a major source of friction in the supplementary benefits system. In one constituency case a woman was deserted by her husband who abducted two of her children and cleared out their joint bank account of £26,000. The bank—incorrectly, of course—gave the total sum to the husband and he left the country. After some pressure the bank relented and gave her £13,000, which was almost immediately consumed by the payment of £10,000 to the mortgagees of the house in which she was living to reduce the £20,000 mortgage with which she had been saddled. During that time she was receiving supplementary benefit and the local office of the DHSS was correctly paying her mortgage interest payments.
Once that payment by the bank was made, however, the women possessed capital exceeding £2,000—capital that she would not normally have received. The payment was completely unexpected but was imposed upon her. For two or three weeks benefit was not paid to her and no payment was made of the mortgage interest. That caused hardship for her and great complexity for the local office of the DHSS. It had to make calculations about the time at which the money was paid to her by the bank. She had to divest herself of all moneys over £2,000, which created difficulties. She had to find ways of spending it in order to get back on to benefit and to ensure resumption of the mortgage interest payments by the DHSS.
That is an instance of how this rule seriously affects the rights of claimants to supplementary benefit. I wish that the Government had proposed in these regulations to increase the disregard on capital, if they were to maintain a standard format, or to have a tapering system as applied previously. Under that system, people did not receive benefit one week but not the next because their capital assets had swollen above a certain figure. I hope that the Minister will make the Government's position plain about whether the £2,000 limit is being reviewed and whether they will bring forward new regulations to amend the scheme to deal with the serious problems that have arisen in many individual cases in many parts of the country.
A number of other points arise. One is the question of single payments for clothing and footwear. There have been a number of difficulties in the new supplementary benefits system in regard to those items. Many outside agencies feel that the provision made previous to the new regulations coming into force was more acceptable and generous than the provision made under the regulations that we recently approved. It especially affects the families with a number of growing children with immediate needs

who frequently, during the three or four months between the buying of one pair of shoes and another, find themselves in serious difficulty. I had hoped that the Government would recognise that serious problem. It is wrong to expect beneficiaries to pay out from their scale rates of benefit for shoes, clothing and footwear when they have growing families with growing needs, and where previously they could have obtained discretionary payments under the old scheme. Under the new scheme some element of discretion still exists, but the DHSS sends out a standard letter to those who have expressed an interest in obtaining discretionary payments which effectively discourages them from making a claim. I regard that as a serious problem. I had hoped that the Government would come forward with some serious-minded proposals to ease the undoubted difficulties that have arisen in those cases.
There are also the problems of discretion and benefits that are supposed to be adequate, in terms of the scale rates, for the needs of individuals. Following the Government's philosophy that discretion had to be reduced we had the phrase worked into the new regulations that discretionary payments could be made
to cover serious damage or serious risk
to the health or safety of any person in the assessment unit. That was a catch-all phrase that was intended to cover instances where the regulations had removed discretion but where the benefit officer thought that a payment should be made to ease a serious problem.
What constitutes serious damage or serious risk? There have been proposals from the Child Poverty Action Group and others to include the words "and welfare" so that the benefit officer will have a wider area of discretion than he or she has now. That will enable those who have serious problems to go to the DHSS with more likelihood of obtaining assistance from their local office.
The Minister said that the Government were amending the housing regulations through the regulations so that anyone living jointly in a household and sharing the expenses of the household would have part of the joint expenses set into his benefit requirements. I understand that to mean that anyone who is living, for example, as a tenant in a house where the landlady refuses to give information about the home circumstances of the claimant—at present the local DHSS office would assess that person as part of the household and assess his requirements as being those of a joint householder—will receive an additional sum set into the individual's requirements and that the local office will be able to increase the benefit to take account of the acknowledged joint expenses. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter.
I have no doubt that difficulties often arise in assessing the position of those in households where the landlord or landlady refuses to divulge important information to the DHSS on the circumstances of a tenant and where the DHSS currently has to make an arbitrary judgment on whether the individual is living in a joint household or whether the relationship is that of landlord and tenant but there is a supposition that they are sharing common goods, common utensils and common facilities. Some clarification would be welcome.
I regret that the Government have not proposed more far-reaching amendments to improve the position on


safety, health and welfare, the £2,000 limit, and the single payments for clothing and footwear. I also hope that there will be early action on consolidation.

Mr. Norman Buchan: It is late in the day to speak at any length, but some things must be said, in view of the Under-Secretary's comments.
The hon. Lady thanked the Child Poverty Action Group for being a candid friend and offering useful advice. The best way to thank a candid friend is to accept some of his advice. In its latest document commenting on the regulations, the CPAG says:
They do nothing to mitigate some of the financially stringent aspects of the new scheme which are causing undue hardship.
The group also speaks of the urgent need to consolidate the regulations—a point that others have made.
The hon. Lady said that the regulations were not simple but that if they were too simple some people would lose. However, our experience is that one of the main reasons for people losing benefits to which they are entitled is that regulations are not too simple but too complex. A simplicity of attitude on the part of the Government, backed by consequent simplicity of regulation, might be better for all.
The CPAG has spoken of what is missing from the regulations—above all action on the capital ceiling of £2,000. The regulations have been in operation for sufficiently long for us to know that the hon. Lady was wrong when she said that they were working well. It is clear that they are not, in the sense of justice to many people.
I have an example of an old couple whose main savings, £1,300, are invested in index-linked national savings retirement certificates, which are of little value to them unless they leave the money in. Because they cannot tap it without losing on the retirement issue, they are brought above the £2,000 ceiling. Their total income is £32·74 a week, about £8 of which is an occupational pension. Yet, because of the £2,000 ceiling, the man stopped receiving any supplementary benefit last November.
It is not even as if the matter does not raise an anomaly. The couple tell me that when their borough council works out rent rebates tenants' investments and index-linked national savings of the retirement issue are not taken into account.
This raises another point that was brought up by the CPAG's earlier work. It said that a review was urgently needed to look at the inter-relationship between the provisions of the supplementary benefits regulations particularly the single payment regulations—and other legislation. In other words, the DHSS regulations often exclude grants for certain essential needs, because the Department thinks that other bodies may take account of them. But certain other bodies, in particular local authorities, do not always have a legal duty to ensure that that need is met. Here is an example of a difference of attitude between the local authority and the DHSS not only introducing inequity between two beneficiaries but creating hardship.
We want to know what the effect is of that £2,000 ceiling. All our evidence at our surgeries is that it is harmful. Secondly, we want to know whether the Department is looking at that question of £2,000. We had a taper and that made sense. The Department has no taper but an absolute cut off, which makes no sense. Is the figure

remotely adequate? We are told that it will be a 10 per cent. inflation figure. That may lead to many interesting discussions come the autumn. Will the figure be left at £2,000, even with an inflation rate of 10 per cent? That means another cut in people's conditions. We cannot allow that to go past for much longer. The figure is wrong. The fact that it is not related to inflation makes it worse.
I have no quarrel with what is introduced. As far as I can see, some of the amendments are amendments to amendments. One example which I have been given by someone doing work on this matter shows that the original regulations got certain aspects wrong, and they were corrected, and it was then discovered that the consequent amendment was wrong. This time, it seems to be right. There is no guarantee that other sections of the regulations are correct yet.
One regulation has not been looked at while the opportunity was there. That is the single payment regulation raised sharply by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race). Those who used to obtain intermittent assistance for clothing and footwear now do not receive it. That is partly because of the attitudes of the Department and the Minister tonight on the question of what the Minister calls simplicity. Regulation 27 is interpreted along with regulation 30. In a letter to claimants warning them of that regulation, it states:
If I do not hear from you within 14 days I will assume that you will not be replying.
We know from experience that such a sentence means that a percentage will not reply. Almost by definition, that is cutting the amount of take-up under regulation 27. Regulation 30 says that the single payment can be made in unspecified circumstances but only where the payment
is the only means by which serious damage or serious risk to the health or safety of any member of the assessment unit may be prevented.
With respect, that sort of formulation—that payment can be made only where there is serious damage or risk—as we know from other discussion on health Bills, almost prevents the application of regulation 27 from being brought into play.
I refer the hon. Lady again to the words of advice of the body which she likes—the candid friend, the CPAG, which says that the measure is too tight, and it would be better to introduce a phrase such as
the health welfare or safety of any member
That is any member of the unit. That would give better and fairer discretion and more justice.
We are told that we shall receive the S mannual shortly. We also believe that long before that time, the £2,000 will have been overcome by inflationary factors. There are 3 million people who are unemployed and over 2,600,000 people registered for unemployment. Such people are coming to our surgeries weekly and are telling us that a problem is posed by the £2,000 ceiling. In my constituency there is a town with 40 per cent. male unemployment—the town of Linwood. I meet those people. Those who have served the country well over the last 10 or a dozen years have considerably more than £2,000 redundancy payment. They have to eat into that with no hope from the Government of going back into employment over the next two or three years.
The Government who talk about self-help are the Government who are preventing people from standing on their own feet when their savings are of consequence to


them. The Government are telling those people to eat into their savings, to use them up and only at that point can they come to the Government for assistance.
The figure must alter when we all know that 2 million, 3 million, and perhaps more, for years to come will be unemployed. The present figure in relation to supplementary benefit is nonsense. It is a cruelty and an injustice, and must go. We bitterly regret that the opportunity was not taken in the regulations to make that necessary change.

Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to answer as briefly as I can the points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked about consolidating regulations. Of course, we need consolidating regulations, and we shall be bringing these forward as soon as we can.
Many Labour Members asked about the capital cut-off. As soon as it became clear that problems arose because of this, we asked for a special inquiry of the Supplementary Benefit Policy Inspectorate into the operation of that capital rule. It has been in effect for just over eight months, and we shall consider the application of the rule, including the level of the disregard, in the light of the inspectorate's report. I shall ensure that we take careful note of what all hon. Members have said this evening.
Mention was also made of regulation 3(6)(a)(i), which refers to the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act. In my experience, there was no intention to mislead anyone. The amendment regulation will take the old cases benefit into account in full. It was an error and we are putting it right, but no one should have suffered, because there was an analogous provision that enabled the £4 disregard to be applied all the way through.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr also asked about gainers and losers. While it is impossible to be precise and say that no one has lost anything—obviously Labour Members argue that those with more than £2,000 capital have lost—most of what is being done tonight is beneficial to claimants. It puts right those things that were not correct by virtue of wording or other slips in the preparation of a large amount of entitlement that went on to the statute book.
The hon. Gentleman asked about access to the regulations. He spoke of their cost, and referred to the supplementary benefits handbook. I showed some surprise when he said that because we have yet to make a final decision. We are considering the future of the handbook, and I shall take carefulnote of what he said. The S manual will contain, in an operational mode, even more than the handbook, but we know how useful the handbook has been and, although it is not 100 per cent. up to date because of the passage of time, it is not a definitive statement of entitlement; it is a guide. The definitive decisions can be found with the help of the local offices, when hon. Members, claimants or their advisers feel that these are not clear.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about regulation 3(4)(a), which treated benefits as a resource. I assure him that there is absolutely no change of policy. The amendment in these regulations simply corrects an error.
I shall not refer to the discussion between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley,

West (Mr. Blackburn). Suffice it to say that many people have discussed the social assistance proposal for a £2,000 cut-off point. I can well understand how the confusion may have arisen.
I turn to the miscellaneous amendments regulations. I hope that you will allow me to answer the hon. Gentleman's point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although those regulations are not strictly under debate at this moment. Regulation 3(3) of the single payments regulations specifies the amount of payment to be made. The original provision was clarified by the miscellaneous amendments regulations 1980, which spelt out the three types of payment.
First, there is payment where the amount is specified in the appropriate regulation. This will be found in the single payments regulation. Secondly, there is payment where the amount is not specified. This relates to the cost of an item or, alternatively, to the cost of services. Those provisions could not be used as alternatives. Either the amount is specified, in which case the first statement applies, or it is not, in which case it is the cost of the item or the cost of services which is paid over.
It is therefore simply as a matter of clarity that we are replacing the word "and" with the word "or", because that is the way in which it seems to have been interpreted all along. The proposed amendment merely seeks to clear up a minor legal confusion. It certainly has no deeper significance. There is no discretion to use one paragraph in lieu of the other. Either the paragraph applies or it does not. It certainly does not mean less than the amount laid down, which was the assurance that the hon. Gentleman sought.
I turn to a couple of remarks made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that I have not so far covered. He spoke of the need for the regulations to be clearer. I, too, wish that they could be clearer. If he does not imagine that I, too, struggle with these things despite the excellent help of our officials, he is much mistaken. What we must be sure about is that the entitlement is unequivocal. That may not mean that the way in which it is worded by the lawyers—he will know that I come from a family of them, although I am not one myself—is always as clear as we lay people might wish it to be, but I agree with him that the entitlement must be unequivocal.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how much discretion had been given during the period when the regulations were perhaps not absolutely correct to the letter. I cannot tell him how many people may not have received their entitlement during that time, but we doubt very much whether anybody has really suffered. If a person feels that his case should be reviewed, he must return to his local office and ask for a review of his case. It is open to such a person to seek that at any time.
Another point raised by the hon. Gentleman is a little outside these regulations, but perhaps I may say to him that the whole question of either a single-parent or a two-parent family whose entitlement to FIS coincides with their only child leaving school is a matter that I should like to look into in greater depth. I cannot answer his point at this moment, but I take it as he put it and I agree with him that we should see whether there is any way to deal with this. I regret that his local office should have given any claimant the advice to give up a job. As he rightly says, it would probably have made the lady's task even more difficult in the future. One aspect that may be able to be considered is that child benefit remains in payment although the


youngster is not entitled to supplementary benefit. It may be the interaction of the FIS regulations with the child benefit regulations which needs some adjustment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look into that.
I accept what has been said about the problems of the long-term unemployed. These regulations are not the place to put those matters right, but I note carefully what hon. Members have said.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr asked about the regulation which replaced "television licence" by "leisure or amenity item". That phrase appears in the definition of normal requirements in regulation 4(1) of the requirements regulations. The examples given there are television licence and rental, newspapers, confectionery and tobacco. The list is not exhaustive, but it is important that it should not be restrictive. Replacing the original phrase with "leisure or amenity item", helps to put the matter right.
The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) mentioned the complexity in the consolidation, and I have dealt with that. He also mentioned certain regulations being cited either when only a partial entitlement was granted or when no entitlement was granted. When the new scheme was introduced it was intended to follow the national insurance practice of quoting to the claimant the supplementary benefit officer's decision, where that decision was a refusal or a reward of modified benefit, and that the decision quoted should give the regulation on which it was based. I am sorry to say that, because the forms had to go to print very early and before the regulations were published, the references had to be in very general terms. In reprinting the forms the references will be more specific.
However, to give references to all regulations on all decisions would hardly be practicable, so we must aim to give the major regulation that modifies or denies benefit. If further information is required, it is available. It is not simply what is issued on the A124 form. For example, if a weekly payment is awarded it will be based on a range of other individual regulations. It would be better to indicate the overall regulation and, if necessary, give the detail at a subsequent stage, if needed. We are aware of the need to cite the relevant regulations much more clearly than was done at the beginning.
The hon. Members for Wood Green and for Stockport, North commented on single payments. The single payments regulations are not before us tonight, but it would for the convenience of the House if I stated that we are carefully monitoring internally and externally by commissioned research, what is happening with single payments regulations. If the results of the research show

substantial areas of need that are not being met by the regulations, we shall consider whether they should be amended.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) mentioned the interaction of regulations 27 and 30. If I discover something when I read the report, I shall write to him.
We are aware of the complexity of housing benefits, which the hon. Member for Wood Green mentioned. I shall consider what he said about the landlady and the tenant, although the situation is exactly as I stated in my opening remarks. We have made provision for members of the same household to be allowed their appropriate share of housing costs if they are in practice, sharing the expenses, but it is difficult if the landlady will not say what the costs are.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West also mentioned single payments regulations. The Child Poverty Action Group report states that the single payments regulations prevent the Department from making payments in areas where the duties of local authorities are not clear cut, and that leaves the claimant effectively stranded between the two statutory authorities. I should like more information on the example given in the report, which concerned local authority property and repairs. However, through the Supplementary Benefit Policy Inspectorate we are looking at how the regulations are working. If there proves to be a problem, we must take the necessary steps to tackle it sensibly.
Several hon. Members mentioned the adequacy of rates. With the exception of the overall supplementary benefit levels, which were announced in the uprating statement made by my right hon. Friend on 11 March last, we have not gone through all the details. That is for another occasion. However, we are conscious of current—not out-of-date—costs. We are concerned to make the scheme work as smoothly as possible in the interests of claimants and to ensure that as far as possible offices, which often operate in difficult circumstances and which face the complication of all our social security legislation have not only the S manual, but all the aids and helps available. In that way we can ensure that they pay benefits to which people are entitled as quickly and as straightforwardly as possible. We hope that claimants will always claim their entitlements and that hon. Members will encourage them to do so.
I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1981, which were laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.

Hospital Broadcasting Services (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Mr. Harry Ewing: This morning, I wish to raise the subject of the serious situation into which hospital broadcasting services throughout the United Kingdom, and particularly in Scotland, are stumbling.
I do not hold the Government responsible for the problems facing hospital broadcasting services. I shall explain my reason for raising this debate. For several years, the land line rental paid by the various hospital broadcasting services, such as the Edinburgh hospital broadcasting service and the Radio Royal service, in my constituency, has remained static at £1,000 per annum. As a result of a decision taken by the telecommunications section of the Post Office, annual increases of 50 per cent. each year until 1983 or 1984 are to be applied to land line rental to bring the rental figure up from £1,000 per annum to £5,000 per annum.
Obviously, as the hospital broadcasting services are run by voluntary groups they soon experienced great difficulty in raising the money. The evidence shows that the difficulties that I forecast when I wrote to the then chairman of the Post Office, Sir William Barlow, are becoming a reality. Before I became a Member of Parliament I was a Post Office employee. Nevertheless, I am not proud of the part that the telecommunications section has played in this serious matter. Indeed, I attended a reception held in the House by the telecommunications section. It was attended by the then chairman designate of British Telecom—now chairman—Sir George Jefferson and his public relations official Ivor Mills. I took the trouble to speak to them both about the serious problem of land line rental. That was some months ago. Both of them promised to write to me. As I had explained the situation, they faithfully promised to write to me and to try to do something about it.
I am sad to say that to this day I am still awaiting a letter from the chairman of British Telecom or from Ivor Mills. I admit freely that I wrote a rather strongly worded letter some time ago to the deputy manager of British Telecom saying that if the hospital broadcasting services died due to the actions of British Telecom, I would make it my business to ensure that the British public were made aware of who was responsible. That is why I say that I do not hold the Government responsible for the problem in which the hospital broadcasting services find themselves.
The main reason why I raise this Adjournment debate is that I believe that the Government can take positive action to help to resolve the problem. As an example of the increased charges now being applied, I cite the case of Radio Royal, at Falkirk, in my constituency. It has paid £1,000 for a number of years in land line rental. Its first increased account at the end of March this year amounted to £1,600. That increase was higher than the 50 per cent. that the Post Office had threatened to apply in the first year. As a direct result of that increased bill, Radio Royal has taken action to cut the service to three hospitals—the Kildean hospital at Stirling, in my constituency, Orchard House hospital, also in Stirling, and Bannockburn

hospital, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). It is significant that all three are geriatric hospitals.
I argue strongly that the hospital broadcasting services are just as much a part of a patient's therapy as many of the therapeutic acts applied to patients, particularly during their convalescing period.
While the BBC and the commercial stations, Radio Forth and Radio Clyde, and no doubt, also, Radio Tayside, provide very good services, it is fairly obvious that these services are aimed at the general public. The difference between the BBC, the commercial stations and the hospital broadcasting services is that the hospital service is a specialised service aimed only at the hospital patient. Apart from Radio Royal, to which I have already referred, the Edinburgh hospital broadcasting service has dropped two hospitals from its broadcasting circuit. All this is in order to try to reduce the land line rental figure with which the hospital broadcasting services are faced.
I know that the Minister will say that the Government, in an effort to help, have announced that the hospital broadcasting services can advertise and can accept commercial advertisements. I am sure that the Minister will also be the first to agree that the suggestion is impracticable. It is not possible for the hospital broadcasting services to accept commercial advertising. There are good reasons. The hospital broadcasting services are not licensed under the 1969 Act which requires anyone broadcasting commercially to be licensed. It is very expensive to obtain a licence.
The hospital broadcasting services do not have to negotiate with the three performing rights societies, which is also a costly business. If the services were to embark upon commercial advertising, the first requirement, at further expense, would be to get themselves licensed. They would then have to negotiate with the three performing rights societies—again at considerable expense.
The Scottish Office, in a circular dated 20 June 1980, sent to the health boards in Scotland a list of the subjects on which hospital broadcasting services could not advertise. The list is extensive and it is fairly obvious. The services could not advertise any medicine or medical treatment, medical appliance or pharmaceutical product. They would not be allowed to advertise a product which included any reference to sickness, infirmity, death or hospitalisation. They would not be allowed to broadcast an advert which contained a reference to alcoholic drink, cigarettes, tobacco, cigars or any other smoking products. They would not be allowed to broadcast any advert which required the use of testimonials and no advert may be broadcast which guarantees that the purchaser of a product shall have the purchase price returned to him in any specified circumstance, unless the advertiser has given the health authority, not the hospital broadcasting service, an undertaking in writing that he will comply with the guarantee. Finally, no advertisement inviting any person to take part in a competition may be broadcast without the written consent of the health authority.
I understand, and I am not critical of, the extensive list of prohibitions. The list is eloquent testimony to my claim that the possibility of the hospital broadcasting services accepting commercial advertising is impracticable.
The other point that I want to make is real, relevant and practical. The hospital broadcasting services are voluntary organisations. In my constituency in Falkirk the service is


run by a dedicated group of young people. They would not want to compete with the Falkirk Herald, the Stirling Observer or the Edinburgh Evening News in advertising. They have to depend on the good will of all those newspapers that circulate in our area to ensure that they can raise the necessary finance to keep the broadcasting going. They would not want to compete commercially with Radio 4 or Radio Clyde. Those stations are professionals in attracting radio advertising. Dedicated amateurs—I do not use the word "amateur" in a derogatory sense—could not compete with professional salesmen in selling advertising air time on the hospital broadcasting services. I hope that the Minister will accept that the possibility of the hospital broadcasting services being able to go in for commercial advertising should be dismissed.
The other point I make on advertising is that if, by some chance, all the criteria I have mentioned were made—the station were to be licensed and the performing rights agreements made—there would still be a major problem, because hospital broadcasting services would have to keep recordings of their programmes, in case some advertiser were to claim that his or her advert had not been broadcast at the agreed time for the agreed length of time. To prove that that advert had been run at the agreed time for the agreed length of time, the programme would have to be kept, produced as proof and played back to the client to prove that that advert had been run.
At present—I am sorry to say this—most of those dedicated young people who have tried to keep this very essential service for hospital patients going now have to spend much of their valuable time in raising money and precious little of their time in broadcasting to the patients.
I spoke this evening to one of the members of Radio Royal hospital broadcasting service, Mr. Bill Gilchrist. He told me that each Saturday for the last month the service has towed a caravan to galas to advertise and attract additional resources to keep the hospital broadcasting service afloat.
I make a suggestion in a genuine attempt to solve the problem. By 1984 the land line rental will cost £5,000 a year. That certainly applies to Radio Royal, at Falkirk. The sum for the Edinburgh and Victoria hospital broadcasting services will be similar. The responsibility for the land line rental should be transferred to the health board.
A condition was laid on hospital broadcasting services that any profits from commercial advertising should go to the health board and not be retained by the hospital broadcasting service. I suggest that the land line rental should be paid directly by the area health board and that the job of the hospital broadcasting service should be to maintain the record library, purchase and maintain equipment and set out studios. This is what the young people in Stirling and Falkirk did, and they made a marvellous job of it. They converted an old hospital ward into a marvellous studio. By voluntary effort young people raised enormous sums to soundproof walls and to purchase and recondition equipment.
There could be a spin-off for the Minister and the health boards. In the case of Radio Royal, it is possible that by October this year the youngsters will have taken their project a stage further by producing newspapers in braille on a machine which they bought and reconditioned themselves. They have undertaken to deliver the newspapers to every blind person in the Central region. That should be encouraged.
I do not blame this Government in particular, but Governments generally should not countenance youngsters having to raise £5,000 to give to the Post Office before they even start to update the record library or have maintenance work done on broadcasting equipment and receivers. The fire prevention conditions for radio studios are stringent. It would be a scandal if Parliament saddled the dedicated youngsters who run the hospital broadcasting services with the land line rental imposed on them by the Post Office.
I plead with the Minister to tell me, irrespective of what his brief may say, that he will talk to the health boards about the possibility of transferring the cost of the land line rental directly to them. I can give him a guarantee that the groups involved will accept, as they have always accepted, the responsibility of keeping up the record libraries and all the other facilities to which I referred. I am sure that the Minister and I will agree on one thing, and that is that it would be an absolute disaster if the hospital broadcast services were to disappear. Many patients and their relatives depend on the hospital broadcasting services to keep the sick cheery and happy. It is just as much a part of the patient therapy as are any other therapeutic measures that are used on patients in hospital.
I hope, therefore, that I have persuaded the Minister of two things. One is that commercial advertising is a non-starter from the beginning. No hospital broadcasting service in its right mind would go in for it. It should be dismissed out of hand. The other is that I hope that I have persuaded the Minister that the hospital broadcasting services are worth keeping. If that is so, we must accept that the cost of the land line rental should be transferred direct to the health boards. I am not talking about massive sums of money, but about reasonable sums. I hope that the Minister will give me some encouragement that I can transmit to the hospital broadcasting services.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): This short half-hour debate has drawn par for the course for Adjournment debates. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) spoke for 20 minutes, leaving me only 10. I hope, therefore, that he will understand if I am not able to answer all the points that he made. The attendance in the Chamber is about par for the course, in that we have present the hon. Member who initiated the debate, me, the Whip on duty, yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and a few Officers of the House, but that is what we expect at 2.42 am.
However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman put his case in a calm way, because when we last met earlier today in the Scottish Grand Committee, where some interesting situations arise—I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you have had the pleasure of attending Scottish Grand Committees—we ended the day in somewhat of a turmoil. So it is pleasant to be talking calmly tonight.
I shall try to answer some of the points that the hon. Gentleman put. It may mean—the hon. Gentleman, as an ex-Minister, may be glad to know—that I shall have to cut out certain parts of the brief to which he referred. I shall deal with his questions straight away, so that my replies are on the record, although obviously I shall be cut short before I finish saying everything that I want to say.
The question of the land line rental being taken over by the health boards is certainly something that we can put


to the health boards, as long as the hon. Gentleman realises that if they take it on something else has to be cut. The money cannot be conjured out of thin air. While I am quite willing to put it to them, I expect that if the health boards say that they will take this land line rental they will cut out something on the clinical side.
I want to make a point about hospital advertising, because I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about it. In June 1980, in a circular, authorisation was given for hospital broadcasting services to include advertisements in their broadcasts and means of improving the quality of their material and of improving their equipment. Any remaining surplus should be handed over to the hospital authorities for use in the hospital. This followed on a pilot scheme in Islington and Camden and Enfield and Haringey health authorities where advertisements had been successfully introduced into the local hospital radio network by the previous Administration. There are safeguards against the inclusion of unsuitable material, in particular against the advertising of medical products, alcohol and tobacco. In fact, those two pilot schemes introduced by the Labour Government are working satisfactorily, and six are in operation. Unfortunately there are none in Scotland, but that will come.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this subject, since the debate is a welcome opportunity for us to recognise and pay tribute to the voluntary efforts of all those involved in providing the hospital broadcasting services. However wide the choice of national radio and television or local radio available to patients, there is always a place for the programmes produced by the voluntary organisations especially designed to meet the needs of those in hospital. As in many other areas of the health and social services, the work done and interest shown by those who give freely of their time makes an invaluable contribution to the quality of care. However excellent we may make official provision—and there will always be limits on what society as a whole is willing and able to spend—nothing can replace the special contribution of the voluntary workers prepared to give of their time to help those less fortunate than themselves.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will receive a reply from the chairman of British Telecom and from the other friends to whom he has written on the subject on the basis of his experience and knowledge from working as a member of that organisation.
The hon. Member drew attention to the particular difficulties facing the hospital broadcasting services because of steep increases in charges for land lines rented from the Post Office. It would be helpful if I spent a little time clarifying the position.
Charges for particular telephone and telecommunications services are, of course, a matter for the commercial decision of British Telecom, as we should now call it, but I feel it would be useful if I were to fill in something of the background.
Post Office rental charges for land lines were held static from 1975 to 1980. The rapid expansion of the telecommunications network coupled with the benefits of technological change allowed the Post Office to keep to its financial targets without increasing charges at a time of generally rising prices. When charges had eventually to be reviewed it was found that for many years the rental for private land lines, particularly over the shorter distances commonly used by hospital broadcasting services, had been running well below the costs of providing the service. Provision of land lines had not benefited to the same extent from technological improvement.
As a result, substantial rental increases were necessary, the precise amount varying with differing qualities of circuit and the length of connection supplied. Short-distance circuits were particularly unprofitable and increases of about 100 per cent. were justified for links of around eight to 10 miles rising to increases of about 500 per cent. for the very shortest circuits of under 200 metres. To mitigate the effects of such increases on its customers generally, the Post Office held the rise in rental for any one year to a maximum of 50 per cent. That increase was applied to all circuits from 1 February 1980 and was well below the rise in the retail price index since private circuit rentals had last been increased in 1975. Now, where necessary, a further 50 per cent. increase has applied from 1 February this year. That has brought rentals for most circuits, certainly over about eight miles, close to economic levels. For the shorter links, increases will, however, have to continue, at 50 per cent. a year through to 1984 or 1985 for the very shortest links.
The impact of the increases on particular local hospital broadcasting services depends on the quality and lengths of the circuits rented. In the case of the Edinburgh hospital broadcasting service mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, covering eight or nine hospitals, the total of annual rental payments would increase fivefold between 1979 and 1984 or 1985, from about £800 to some £4,000 a year. Even when spread over a period, those increases represent a considerable extra burden on the finances of any voluntary organisation.
There is much more that I wish to say. I must conclude in case I am cut off in mid-stream. I wish to mention again what I said earlier about our views on advertising. It was introduced by the Labour Administration and appears to be working satisfactorily. I have taken a note of what the hon. Gentleman said about financing. It must be a matter for the health boards to decide. Had time permitted I would have gone through the health board areas one by one and pointed out that even with the increases we have not received requests for assistance in any great form from health board areas. However—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes to Three o'clock am.